"John H." wrote in message
news
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 17:16:36 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 09:11:54 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Nov 3, 7:10 am, Tosk wrote:
In article ,

says...







Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:41:32 -0500, "D.Duck" wrote:

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c....View&FileStor...
So as a man who studies this type of thing in much more depth
than
I,
what do you think of our "significant" number of BOEs as compared
to all
other countries with the exception of Russia?

Noted that the vast majority of our reserves are in coal.

Two things come immediately to mind.

One - we need to make more use of the proven coal reserves up to
and
including gasification, liquification and burning. We need to work
on
clean coal technology and CO2 sequestration by allowing more pilot
plants and research into various techniques. That's where we seem
to
be failing miserably.

A recent example is what's happened in Lindon, NJ. I forget the
company, but they wanted to build a 750 megawatt coal fired
station,
sequester the CO2 by pumping it offshore into a salt dome where it
woud stay permanently locked up. The technology is available now
and
it seems like a good concept. Unfortunetly, the Enviromentalists
are
creating havoc with the plan to the point where it probably will
be
abandoned thus losing the facility and needed power generation.

Two - we need to start exploring and drilling off on our own to
see
what may, or may not, be easily accessible onshore, inshore and
offshore. There are some areas off New Jersey and California that
appear to have the correct geological formations (domes, salt
domes
and such) to contain easily recoverable oil - some think the equal
of
all that Arabian Peninsula has ever contained, but we aren't
allowed
to drill for various reasons - mostly political. And it's not like
new
discoveries are impossible - consider Brazil's Guari and Tupi
fields
which are recent discoveries - it's out there, we just have to
find
it.

Here's a list for you to consider - the amount of fossil fuel
needed
to produce 1,000,000 BTUs.

Natural Gas: 1,000 cubic feet

Coal: 83.34 pounds @ 12,000 Btu/pound

Propane: 10.917 gallons @ 91,000 Btu/gallon

Gasoline: 8.0 gallons @125,000 Btu/gallon

Fuel Oil #2: 7.194 gallons @ 139,000 Btu/gallon

Fuel Oil #6: 6.67 gallons @ 150,000 Btu/gallon

You'd need a lot of wind farms and solar panels to produce similar
results to fossil fuels.

Nice summary....we have some work to do, particularly on the
political
front.

What cracks me up is the idea that a 100 by 100 foot fenced off area
for
drilling might hurt migrating animals, but 40 acres of solar panels is
just fine...

--
Wafa free again.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If a fence is put across a migration route, that's totally different
from a solar array that is off of the ground.

Solar arrays do their best in the desert, where there's lots of
sunshine. They also need water for cooling, which is not all that
plentiful in the desert.

Actually, solar arrays do their best where there's lots of sunshine and
cool
temperatures. Then, you don't need any cooling.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/bu...t/30water.html

or: http://tinyurl.com/yftpjv8

Now nuclear would be a good idea, but most liberals try to push
something else. They really don't want to solve the problem.

Nuclear is a good idea. The French and the Brits use lots of it.

They'd rather make Al Gore, et al, very, very, rich.

Wonder how much money Gore shoves in 'Bama's direction?

Those pesky Nobel people. They'll never learn!

You keep showing yourself for what you are.

I'm sure those pesky, noble, Nobel people are getting their cut also.


Right. They're getting rich off the prize money they give out. I get it.
Really.

I thought you plonked me a couple of times. Are you having filter trouble?

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 17:16:36 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 09:11:54 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Nov 3, 7:10 am, Tosk wrote:
In article ,

says...







Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:41:32 -0500, "D.Duck"
wrote:

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c....View&FileStor...
So as a man who studies this type of thing in much more depth
than
I,
what do you think of our "significant" number of BOEs as
compared
to all
other countries with the exception of Russia?

Noted that the vast majority of our reserves are in coal.

Two things come immediately to mind.

One - we need to make more use of the proven coal reserves up to
and
including gasification, liquification and burning. We need to
work
on
clean coal technology and CO2 sequestration by allowing more
pilot
plants and research into various techniques. That's where we
seem to
be failing miserably.

A recent example is what's happened in Lindon, NJ. I forget the
company, but they wanted to build a 750 megawatt coal fired
station,
sequester the CO2 by pumping it offshore into a salt dome where
it
woud stay permanently locked up. The technology is available now
and
it seems like a good concept. Unfortunetly, the Enviromentalists
are
creating havoc with the plan to the point where it probably will
be
abandoned thus losing the facility and needed power generation.

Two - we need to start exploring and drilling off on our own to
see
what may, or may not, be easily accessible onshore, inshore and
offshore. There are some areas off New Jersey and California
that
appear to have the correct geological formations (domes, salt
domes
and such) to contain easily recoverable oil - some think the
equal
of
all that Arabian Peninsula has ever contained, but we aren't
allowed
to drill for various reasons - mostly political. And it's not
like
new
discoveries are impossible - consider Brazil's Guari and Tupi
fields
which are recent discoveries - it's out there, we just have to
find
it.

Here's a list for you to consider - the amount of fossil fuel
needed
to produce 1,000,000 BTUs.

Natural Gas: 1,000 cubic feet

Coal: 83.34 pounds @ 12,000 Btu/pound

Propane: 10.917 gallons @ 91,000 Btu/gallon

Gasoline: 8.0 gallons @125,000 Btu/gallon

Fuel Oil #2: 7.194 gallons @ 139,000 Btu/gallon

Fuel Oil #6: 6.67 gallons @ 150,000 Btu/gallon

You'd need a lot of wind farms and solar panels to produce
similar
results to fossil fuels.

Nice summary....we have some work to do, particularly on the
political
front.

What cracks me up is the idea that a 100 by 100 foot fenced off area
for
drilling might hurt migrating animals, but 40 acres of solar panels
is
just fine...

--
Wafa free again.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If a fence is put across a migration route, that's totally different
from a solar array that is off of the ground.

Solar arrays do their best in the desert, where there's lots of
sunshine. They also need water for cooling, which is not all that
plentiful in the desert.

Actually, solar arrays do their best where there's lots of sunshine and
cool
temperatures. Then, you don't need any cooling.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/bu...t/30water.html

or: http://tinyurl.com/yftpjv8

Now nuclear would be a good idea, but most liberals try to push
something else. They really don't want to solve the problem.

Nuclear is a good idea. The French and the Brits use lots of it.

They'd rather make Al Gore, et al, very, very, rich.

Wonder how much money Gore shoves in 'Bama's direction?

Those pesky Nobel people. They'll never learn!

You keep showing yourself for what you are.

I'm sure those pesky, noble, Nobel people are getting their cut also.

The Nobel is just a popularity contest, really has nothing significant
to do or prove.. It's a joke, has been for decades...

--
Wafa free again.


Yup. Nothing. Sure. I guess you're not that popular?

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 09:11:54 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Nov 3, 7:10 am, Tosk wrote:
In article ,

says...







Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:41:32 -0500, "D.Duck" wrote:

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c....View&FileStor...
So as a man who studies this type of thing in much more depth
than I,
what do you think of our "significant" number of BOEs as compared
to all
other countries with the exception of Russia?

Noted that the vast majority of our reserves are in coal.

Two things come immediately to mind.

One - we need to make more use of the proven coal reserves up to
and
including gasification, liquification and burning. We need to work
on
clean coal technology and CO2 sequestration by allowing more pilot
plants and research into various techniques. That's where we seem
to
be failing miserably.

A recent example is what's happened in Lindon, NJ. I forget the
company, but they wanted to build a 750 megawatt coal fired
station,
sequester the CO2 by pumping it offshore into a salt dome where it
woud stay permanently locked up. The technology is available now
and
it seems like a good concept. Unfortunetly, the Enviromentalists
are
creating havoc with the plan to the point where it probably will
be
abandoned thus losing the facility and needed power generation.

Two - we need to start exploring and drilling off on our own to
see
what may, or may not, be easily accessible onshore, inshore and
offshore. There are some areas off New Jersey and California that
appear to have the correct geological formations (domes, salt
domes
and such) to contain easily recoverable oil - some think the equal
of
all that Arabian Peninsula has ever contained, but we aren't
allowed
to drill for various reasons - mostly political. And it's not like
new
discoveries are impossible - consider Brazil's Guari and Tupi
fields
which are recent discoveries - it's out there, we just have to
find
it.

Here's a list for you to consider - the amount of fossil fuel
needed
to produce 1,000,000 BTUs.

Natural Gas: 1,000 cubic feet

Coal: 83.34 pounds @ 12,000 Btu/pound

Propane: 10.917 gallons @ 91,000 Btu/gallon

Gasoline: 8.0 gallons @125,000 Btu/gallon

Fuel Oil #2: 7.194 gallons @ 139,000 Btu/gallon

Fuel Oil #6: 6.67 gallons @ 150,000 Btu/gallon

You'd need a lot of wind farms and solar panels to produce similar
results to fossil fuels.

Nice summary....we have some work to do, particularly on the
political
front.

What cracks me up is the idea that a 100 by 100 foot fenced off area
for
drilling might hurt migrating animals, but 40 acres of solar panels is
just fine...

--
Wafa free again.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If a fence is put across a migration route, that's totally different
from a solar array that is off of the ground.

Solar arrays do their best in the desert, where there's lots of
sunshine. They also need water for cooling, which is not all that
plentiful in the desert.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/bu...t/30water.html

or: http://tinyurl.com/yftpjv8

Now nuclear would be a good idea, but most liberals try to push
something else. They really don't want to solve the problem.

They'd rather make Al Gore, et al, very, very, rich.

Wonder how much money Gore shoves in 'Bama's direction?

Well, he has had 5 secret meetings at the White house so far.. Something
the left railed Bush for.. But it's ok for Obama, harryism...

--
Wafa free again.


You forgot to mention Bill Ayers' recent visits... or Rev. Wright's.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"H the K" wrote in message
...
On 11/3/09 10:08 PM, Tosk wrote:

Well, he has had 5 secret meetings at the White house so far.

If they were secret meetings, how would a jobless moron like you know
about them?


Maybe he's really in the CIA or NSA. Or, Occam's Razor would say....

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 16:43:35 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Perhaps you'd like to flood Yosemite valley? Terrible thing natural
beauty.
We sure don't need it.

That is completely stupid and so typical.

Go away and play with Harry and jps - they share your delusions.

Leave the adults alone.


You're the one who claimed things shouldn't be preserved because of natural
beauty.

Like I've said before, you're here with me; I'm not here with you. Get used
to it.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"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

"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.

In article ,
says...

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:45:38 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Nov 3, 4:37 pm, wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 11:21:37 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker

wrote:
Yes, they ignore the pipeline because it was built so that they COULD
walk under them. Many types of tundra animals use the EXACT same route
and have for thousands of years. I've been to many many drilling rigs
also. They are nasty, stinky, they use a lot of chemicals in the
process, and you can't tell me that wildlife would thrive in that
environment.

Wildlife do fine around people. They have a huge deer problem in
downtown Washington DC. I damned near hit two of them on the
Whitehurst freeway. (Georgetown)

I have also flown at low altitude over arrays of wind turbines and
was
appalled at how destructive they were to the environment. Each
required a road to service the turbine regularly and the turbines
were
like ugly blotches on the ridges. By contrast, the average
producing oil well can barely be noticed even from low altitude and
gas wells are even more invisible.

So, gas and oilwells don't need servicing? Funny, every one I've ever
seen has a road going to it......

The biggest danger to caribou in that situation is getting hit by a
truck.
Normally the biggest danger to caribou is they get killed by wolves
but you folks got mad when the people in Alaska tried to thin out the
wolves so I am confused. Do you really give a **** about caribou or is
this just another way to demonize oil companies?

WHOOOOOSH.......

So, let me get this straight. Because nature is what it is, and yes,
wolves eat caribou, you think that we should do anything and
everything to make sure we kill them all........just because in the
wild there is natural selection? Did you get that directly from Rush,
because that's just a dumb position. Unfortunately dise ase kills
children. Does that mean that we should stop keeping poison out of
their reach?


The real point is why do you think a couple hundred acres in a 19
million square mile refuge is going to seriously affect caribou in any
way at all?
We cut roads through the middle of national parks all over the country
and the deer, antelope and bison are as likely to be around the roads
as anywhere else. Grazing animals are not particularly afraid of
people.

ANWAR is not a pristine land. Former military compounds on it, villages.

Seems almost every argument is being nailed here today. Wonder where the
honest dems are, seems they can only act like harry and change the
subject, or deny the facts all together cause Maddow, and Huffington
told them to...

--
Wafa free again.

"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

"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