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

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

wrote:
Yes, they ignore the pipeline because it was built so that they COULD
walk under them. Many types of tundra animals use the EXACT same route
and have for thousands of years. I've been to many many drilling rigs
also. They are nasty, stinky, they use a lot of chemicals in the
process, and you can't tell me that wildlife would thrive in that
environment.
Wildlife do fine around people. They have a huge deer problem in
downtown Washington DC. I damned near hit two of them on the
Whitehurst freeway. (Georgetown)

I have also flown at low altitude over arrays of wind turbines and
was
appalled at how destructive they were to the environment. Each
required a road to service the turbine regularly and the turbines
were
like ugly blotches on the ridges. By contrast, the average
producing oil well can barely be noticed even from low altitude and
gas wells are even more invisible.
So, gas and oilwells don't need servicing? Funny, every one I've ever
seen has a road going to it......
The biggest danger to caribou in that situation is getting hit by a
truck.
Normally the biggest danger to caribou is they get killed by wolves
but you folks got mad when the people in Alaska tried to thin out the
wolves so I am confused. Do you really give a **** about caribou or is
this just another way to demonize oil companies?
WHOOOOOSH.......

So, let me get this straight. Because nature is what it is, and yes,
wolves eat caribou, you think that we should do anything and
everything to make sure we kill them all........just because in the
wild there is natural selection? Did you get that directly from Rush,
because that's just a dumb position. Unfortunately dise ase kills
children. Does that mean that we should stop keeping poison out of
their reach?
The real point is why do you think a couple hundred acres in a 19
million square mile refuge is going to seriously affect caribou in any
way at all?
We cut roads through the middle of national parks all over the country
and the deer, antelope and bison are as likely to be around the roads
as anywhere else. Grazing animals are not particularly afraid of
people.
ANWAR is not a pristine land. Former military compounds on it, villages.
Seems almost every argument is being nailed here today. Wonder where the
honest dems are, seems they can only act like harry and change the
subject, or deny the facts all together cause Maddow, and Huffington
told them to...

Okay, I just don't understand, so please help me. Why does it seem to me
that you and other conservatives don't want anything to do with creating
and building new technologies and instead just want to keep using fossil
fuels? It appears to me that if you all had your way, we'd still be
using technology that damned near ruined areas of the United States
until we got the pollution under control.
I would ask the same thing of you? Why are you so against new technology
in the areas we have already developed?

Such as?

Coal, nuclear, natural gas, OIL!!!


Where did I ever say anything that would leave you to believe that I am
against those OLD technologies? Now, show me some of the "new
technology" that you are talking about.

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 22:10:23 -0500, Tosk
wrote:

In article ,
says...

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

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

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







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

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

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

Two things come immediately to mind.

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

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

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

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

Natural Gas: 1,000 cubic feet

Coal: 83.34 pounds @ 12,000 Btu/pound

Propane: 10.917 gallons @ 91,000 Btu/gallon

Gasoline: 8.0 gallons @125,000 Btu/gallon

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

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

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

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

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

--
Wafa free again.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

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

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

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


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

or: http://tinyurl.com/yftpjv8

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

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

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

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

Those pesky Nobel people. They'll never learn!

You keep showing yourself for what you are.

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

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

More and more I think it's a money making proposition for the AGW
crowd. We know the Canadians are an honest bunch:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/printpage.php

I believe the scam is much, much bigger than shown there.

Mo But not much has been heard about any scam investigation since
'Bama took office. I wonder why?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=17814838

http://www.nextgenpe.com/news/boliva...n-offset-scam/

Just type carbon offset scam and get your 24 million hits. Don't you
think Gore, 'Bama, et al, have their fingers in that big pot they keep
passing around?

John H. wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 22:10:23 -0500, Tosk
wrote:

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

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

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







Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:41:32 -0500, "D.Duck" wrote:
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c....View&FileStor...
So as a man who studies this type of thing in much more depth than
I,
what do you think of our "significant" number of BOEs as compared
to all
other countries with the exception of Russia?
Noted that the vast majority of our reserves are in coal.
Two things come immediately to mind.
One - we need to make more use of the proven coal reserves up to and
including gasification, liquification and burning. We need to work
on
clean coal technology and CO2 sequestration by allowing more pilot
plants and research into various techniques. That's where we seem to
be failing miserably.
A recent example is what's happened in Lindon, NJ. I forget the
company, but they wanted to build a 750 megawatt coal fired station,
sequester the CO2 by pumping it offshore into a salt dome where it
woud stay permanently locked up. The technology is available now and
it seems like a good concept. Unfortunetly, the Enviromentalists are
creating havoc with the plan to the point where it probably will be
abandoned thus losing the facility and needed power generation.
Two - we need to start exploring and drilling off on our own to see
what may, or may not, be easily accessible onshore, inshore and
offshore. There are some areas off New Jersey and California that
appear to have the correct geological formations (domes, salt domes
and such) to contain easily recoverable oil - some think the equal
of
all that Arabian Peninsula has ever contained, but we aren't allowed
to drill for various reasons - mostly political. And it's not like
new
discoveries are impossible - consider Brazil's Guari and Tupi fields
which are recent discoveries - it's out there, we just have to find
it.
Here's a list for you to consider - the amount of fossil fuel needed
to produce 1,000,000 BTUs.
Natural Gas: 1,000 cubic feet
Coal: 83.34 pounds @ 12,000 Btu/pound
Propane: 10.917 gallons @ 91,000 Btu/gallon
Gasoline: 8.0 gallons @125,000 Btu/gallon
Fuel Oil #2: 7.194 gallons @ 139,000 Btu/gallon
Fuel Oil #6: 6.67 gallons @ 150,000 Btu/gallon
You'd need a lot of wind farms and solar panels to produce similar
results to fossil fuels.
Nice summary....we have some work to do, particularly on the political
front.
What cracks me up is the idea that a 100 by 100 foot fenced off area for
drilling might hurt migrating animals, but 40 acres of solar panels is
just fine...

--
Wafa free again.- Hide quoted text -

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

Solar arrays do their best in the desert, where there's lots of
sunshine. They also need water for cooling, which is not all that
plentiful in the desert.
Actually, solar arrays do their best where there's lots of sunshine and cool
temperatures. Then, you don't need any cooling.

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

or: http://tinyurl.com/yftpjv8

Now nuclear would be a good idea, but most liberals try to push
something else. They really don't want to solve the problem.
Nuclear is a good idea. The French and the Brits use lots of it.

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

Wonder how much money Gore shoves in 'Bama's direction?
Those pesky Nobel people. They'll never learn!
You keep showing yourself for what you are.

I'm sure those pesky, noble, Nobel people are getting their cut also.
The Nobel is just a popularity contest, really has nothing significant
to do or prove.. It's a joke, has been for decades...

More and more I think it's a money making proposition for the AGW
crowd. We know the Canadians are an honest bunch:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/printpage.php

I believe the scam is much, much bigger than shown there.

Mo But not much has been heard about any scam investigation since
'Bama took office. I wonder why?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=17814838

http://www.nextgenpe.com/news/boliva...n-offset-scam/

Just type carbon offset scam and get your 24 million hits. Don't you
think Gore, 'Bama, et al, have their fingers in that big pot they keep
passing around?

Not as big of a pot as the pig trough Bush and Cheney are feeding from.
Remember Halliburton?

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 10:20:11 -0500, NotNow wrote:

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

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

wrote:
Yes, they ignore the pipeline because it was built so that they COULD
walk under them. Many types of tundra animals use the EXACT same route
and have for thousands of years. I've been to many many drilling rigs
also. They are nasty, stinky, they use a lot of chemicals in the
process, and you can't tell me that wildlife would thrive in that
environment.
Wildlife do fine around people. They have a huge deer problem in
downtown Washington DC. I damned near hit two of them on the
Whitehurst freeway. (Georgetown)

I have also flown at low altitude over arrays of wind turbines and
was
appalled at how destructive they were to the environment. Each
required a road to service the turbine regularly and the turbines
were
like ugly blotches on the ridges. By contrast, the average
producing oil well can barely be noticed even from low altitude and
gas wells are even more invisible.
So, gas and oilwells don't need servicing? Funny, every one I've ever
seen has a road going to it......
The biggest danger to caribou in that situation is getting hit by a
truck.
Normally the biggest danger to caribou is they get killed by wolves
but you folks got mad when the people in Alaska tried to thin out the
wolves so I am confused. Do you really give a **** about caribou or is
this just another way to demonize oil companies?
WHOOOOOSH.......

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

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

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


Okay, I just don't understand, so please help me. Why does it seem to me
that you and other conservatives don't want anything to do with creating
and building new technologies and instead just want to keep using fossil
fuels? It appears to me that if you all had your way, we'd still be
using technology that damned near ruined areas of the United States
until we got the pollution under control.

Is nuclear energy based on fossil fuels?

Loogy, you are sounding more and more flaky. You put words in the
mouths of others, you flat out lie about what people say, and then you
come up with the ridiculous **** above.

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 01:26:09 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 16:43:35 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

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

I just got back from there. They don't have enough water to flood much
of anything. It has all been stolen by San Francisco and the Central
Valley. The big waterfalls you always hear about look like a kid
****ing off a bridge.

We hiked 5 miles and 1000 vertical feet for this spectacular waterfall

http://gfretwell.com/ftp/california/...0waterfall.jpg

This one was on the horseshoe road, Also supposed to be spectacular

http://gfretwell.com/ftp/california/...terfalling.jpg

You did the same amount of hiking, with maybe a tad more vertical, as
I did today, and you didn't even get to putt.

Heartbreaker!

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 10:03:40 -0500, NotNow wrote:

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

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







Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:41:32 -0500, "D.Duck" wrote:
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c....View&FileStor...
So as a man who studies this type of thing in much more depth than I,
what do you think of our "significant" number of BOEs as compared to all
other countries with the exception of Russia?
Noted that the vast majority of our reserves are in coal.
Two things come immediately to mind.
One - we need to make more use of the proven coal reserves up to and
including gasification, liquification and burning. We need to work on
clean coal technology and CO2 sequestration by allowing more pilot
plants and research into various techniques. That's where we seem to
be failing miserably.
A recent example is what's happened in Lindon, NJ. I forget the
company, but they wanted to build a 750 megawatt coal fired station,
sequester the CO2 by pumping it offshore into a salt dome where it
woud stay permanently locked up. The technology is available now and
it seems like a good concept. Unfortunetly, the Enviromentalists are
creating havoc with the plan to the point where it probably will be
abandoned thus losing the facility and needed power generation.
Two - we need to start exploring and drilling off on our own to see
what may, or may not, be easily accessible onshore, inshore and
offshore. There are some areas off New Jersey and California that
appear to have the correct geological formations (domes, salt domes
and such) to contain easily recoverable oil - some think the equal of
all that Arabian Peninsula has ever contained, but we aren't allowed
to drill for various reasons - mostly political. And it's not like new
discoveries are impossible - consider Brazil's Guari and Tupi fields
which are recent discoveries - it's out there, we just have to find
it.
Here's a list for you to consider - the amount of fossil fuel needed
to produce 1,000,000 BTUs.
Natural Gas: 1,000 cubic feet
Coal: 83.34 pounds @ 12,000 Btu/pound
Propane: 10.917 gallons @ 91,000 Btu/gallon
Gasoline: 8.0 gallons @125,000 Btu/gallon
Fuel Oil #2: 7.194 gallons @ 139,000 Btu/gallon
Fuel Oil #6: 6.67 gallons @ 150,000 Btu/gallon
You'd need a lot of wind farms and solar panels to produce similar
results to fossil fuels.
Nice summary....we have some work to do, particularly on the political
front.
What cracks me up is the idea that a 100 by 100 foot fenced off area for
drilling might hurt migrating animals, but 40 acres of solar panels is
just fine...

--
Wafa free again.- Hide quoted text -

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

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

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

or: http://tinyurl.com/yftpjv8

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

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

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

Probably much less than Haliburton shoved to Bush and Cheney.

Well, gosh, if Bush did it then a little on the side is OK for Obama,
right? (That's called the 'Bush Rationale', which you did quite well.)

Is Haliburton not employed by Obama also? Perhaps there is more there
than meets the eye. Could 'Bama be getting as much from Halliburton
(aka 'KBR') as Cheney ever dreamed of (in your mind?

http://www.crocodyl.org/wiki/kbr

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 10:05:31 -0500, NotNow wrote:

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

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

wrote:
Yes, they ignore the pipeline because it was built so that they COULD
walk under them. Many types of tundra animals use the EXACT same route
and have for thousands of years. I've been to many many drilling rigs
also. They are nasty, stinky, they use a lot of chemicals in the
process, and you can't tell me that wildlife would thrive in that
environment.
Wildlife do fine around people. They have a huge deer problem in
downtown Washington DC. I damned near hit two of them on the
Whitehurst freeway. (Georgetown)

I have also flown at low altitude over arrays of wind turbines and was
appalled at how destructive they were to the environment. Each
required a road to service the turbine regularly and the turbines were
like ugly blotches on the ridges. By contrast, the average
producing oil well can barely be noticed even from low altitude and
gas wells are even more invisible.
So, gas and oilwells don't need servicing? Funny, every one I've ever
seen has a road going to it......
The biggest danger to caribou in that situation is getting hit by a
truck.
Normally the biggest danger to caribou is they get killed by wolves
but you folks got mad when the people in Alaska tried to thin out the
wolves so I am confused. Do you really give a **** about caribou or is
this just another way to demonize oil companies?
WHOOOOOSH.......

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

There you go with the words again, Loogy.

Go read his post. He said nothing of the sort.

Saying, "You think that we should do anything and everything to make
sure we kill them all" is a f'ing lie. You're doing a lot of that
lately. Guess who it's reminiscent of?

Uh, John, it wasn't a lie, it was a friggin QUESTION. I don't suppose
you'll apologize for calling me a liar either. Guess who that's
reminiscent of?

Your throwing a question mark in there does not change the statement.
You need to stop putting words in peoples' mouths, whether you throw a
question mark at the end or not. You know damn good and well what he
said, and it sure as **** wasn't what you said he said.

Apologize - my ass.

On Nov 4, 3:38*pm, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 10:05:31 -0500, NotNow wrote:
John H. wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:45:38 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

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

wrote:
Yes, they ignore the pipeline because it was built so that they COULD
walk under them. Many types of tundra animals use the EXACT same route
and have for thousands of years. I've been to many many drilling rigs
also. They are nasty, stinky, they use a lot of chemicals in the
process, and you can't tell me that wildlife would thrive in that
environment.
Wildlife do fine around people. They have a huge deer problem in
downtown Washington DC. I damned near hit two of them on the
Whitehurst freeway. (Georgetown)

I have also flown at low altitude over arrays of wind turbines and was
appalled at how destructive they were to the environment. *Each
required a road to service the turbine regularly and the turbines were
like ugly blotches *on the *ridges. *By contrast, the average
producing oil well can barely be noticed even from low altitude and
gas wells are even more invisible.
So, gas and oilwells don't need servicing? Funny, every one I've ever
seen has a road going to it......
The biggest danger to caribou in that situation is getting hit by a
truck.
Normally the biggest danger to caribou is they get killed by wolves
but you folks got mad when the people in Alaska tried to thin out the
wolves so I am confused. Do you really give a **** about caribou or is
this just another way to demonize oil companies?
WHOOOOOSH.......

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

There you go with the words again, Loogy.

Go read his post. He said nothing of the sort.

Saying, "You think that we should do anything and everything to make
sure we kill them all" is a f'ing lie. You're doing a lot of that
lately. Guess who it's reminiscent of?

Uh, John, it wasn't a lie, it was a friggin QUESTION. I don't suppose
you'll apologize for calling me a liar either. Guess who that's
reminiscent of?

Your throwing a question mark in there does not change the statement.
You need to stop putting words in peoples' mouths, whether you throw a
question mark at the end or not. You know damn good and well what he
said, and it sure as **** wasn't what you said he said.

Apologize - my ass.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I asked a ****ing question. If you aren't man enough to admit your
mistake and apologize for it, so be it.

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:19:05 -0500, NotNow wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 22:10:23 -0500, Tosk
wrote:

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

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

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







Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:41:32 -0500, "D.Duck" wrote:
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c....View&FileStor...
So as a man who studies this type of thing in much more depth than
I,
what do you think of our "significant" number of BOEs as compared
to all
other countries with the exception of Russia?
Noted that the vast majority of our reserves are in coal.
Two things come immediately to mind.
One - we need to make more use of the proven coal reserves up to and
including gasification, liquification and burning. We need to work
on
clean coal technology and CO2 sequestration by allowing more pilot
plants and research into various techniques. That's where we seem to
be failing miserably.
A recent example is what's happened in Lindon, NJ. I forget the
company, but they wanted to build a 750 megawatt coal fired station,
sequester the CO2 by pumping it offshore into a salt dome where it
woud stay permanently locked up. The technology is available now and
it seems like a good concept. Unfortunetly, the Enviromentalists are
creating havoc with the plan to the point where it probably will be
abandoned thus losing the facility and needed power generation.
Two - we need to start exploring and drilling off on our own to see
what may, or may not, be easily accessible onshore, inshore and
offshore. There are some areas off New Jersey and California that
appear to have the correct geological formations (domes, salt domes
and such) to contain easily recoverable oil - some think the equal
of
all that Arabian Peninsula has ever contained, but we aren't allowed
to drill for various reasons - mostly political. And it's not like
new
discoveries are impossible - consider Brazil's Guari and Tupi fields
which are recent discoveries - it's out there, we just have to find
it.
Here's a list for you to consider - the amount of fossil fuel needed
to produce 1,000,000 BTUs.
Natural Gas: 1,000 cubic feet
Coal: 83.34 pounds @ 12,000 Btu/pound
Propane: 10.917 gallons @ 91,000 Btu/gallon
Gasoline: 8.0 gallons @125,000 Btu/gallon
Fuel Oil #2: 7.194 gallons @ 139,000 Btu/gallon
Fuel Oil #6: 6.67 gallons @ 150,000 Btu/gallon
You'd need a lot of wind farms and solar panels to produce similar
results to fossil fuels.
Nice summary....we have some work to do, particularly on the political
front.
What cracks me up is the idea that a 100 by 100 foot fenced off area for
drilling might hurt migrating animals, but 40 acres of solar panels is
just fine...

--
Wafa free again.- Hide quoted text -

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

Solar arrays do their best in the desert, where there's lots of
sunshine. They also need water for cooling, which is not all that
plentiful in the desert.
Actually, solar arrays do their best where there's lots of sunshine and cool
temperatures. Then, you don't need any cooling.

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

or: http://tinyurl.com/yftpjv8

Now nuclear would be a good idea, but most liberals try to push
something else. They really don't want to solve the problem.
Nuclear is a good idea. The French and the Brits use lots of it.

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

Wonder how much money Gore shoves in 'Bama's direction?
Those pesky Nobel people. They'll never learn!
You keep showing yourself for what you are.

I'm sure those pesky, noble, Nobel people are getting their cut also.
The Nobel is just a popularity contest, really has nothing significant
to do or prove.. It's a joke, has been for decades...

More and more I think it's a money making proposition for the AGW
crowd. We know the Canadians are an honest bunch:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/printpage.php

I believe the scam is much, much bigger than shown there.

Mo But not much has been heard about any scam investigation since
'Bama took office. I wonder why?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=17814838

http://www.nextgenpe.com/news/boliva...n-offset-scam/

Just type carbon offset scam and get your 24 million hits. Don't you
think Gore, 'Bama, et al, have their fingers in that big pot they keep
passing around?

Not as big of a pot as the pig trough Bush and Cheney are feeding from.
Remember Halliburton?

Yeah, now 'Bama's feeding from the Halliburton pot also. You really
should get your head out of the sand.

Oh, and learn what the 'Bush Rationale' is. You keep using it to
justify your boy, 'Bama. But he's still a loser.

I like your attitude though. "Bush was a loser, therefore it's OK for
'Bama to be a loser also." Typical liberal ****.
--
Loogy says:

Conservative = Good
Liberal = Bad

I agree. John H

On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 12:56:12 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Nov 4, 3:38*pm, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 10:05:31 -0500, NotNow wrote:
John H. wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:45:38 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

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

wrote:
Yes, they ignore the pipeline because it was built so that they COULD
walk under them. Many types of tundra animals use the EXACT same route
and have for thousands of years. I've been to many many drilling rigs
also. They are nasty, stinky, they use a lot of chemicals in the
process, and you can't tell me that wildlife would thrive in that
environment.
Wildlife do fine around people. They have a huge deer problem in
downtown Washington DC. I damned near hit two of them on the
Whitehurst freeway. (Georgetown)

I have also flown at low altitude over arrays of wind turbines and was
appalled at how destructive they were to the environment. *Each
required a road to service the turbine regularly and the turbines were
like ugly blotches *on the *ridges. *By contrast, the average
producing oil well can barely be noticed even from low altitude and
gas wells are even more invisible.
So, gas and oilwells don't need servicing? Funny, every one I've ever
seen has a road going to it......
The biggest danger to caribou in that situation is getting hit by a
truck.
Normally the biggest danger to caribou is they get killed by wolves
but you folks got mad when the people in Alaska tried to thin out the
wolves so I am confused. Do you really give a **** about caribou or is
this just another way to demonize oil companies?
WHOOOOOSH.......

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

There you go with the words again, Loogy.

Go read his post. He said nothing of the sort.

Saying, "You think that we should do anything and everything to make
sure we kill them all" is a f'ing lie. You're doing a lot of that
lately. Guess who it's reminiscent of?

Uh, John, it wasn't a lie, it was a friggin QUESTION. I don't suppose
you'll apologize for calling me a liar either. Guess who that's
reminiscent of?

Your throwing a question mark in there does not change the statement.
You need to stop putting words in peoples' mouths, whether you throw a
question mark at the end or not. You know damn good and well what he
said, and it sure as **** wasn't what you said he said.

Apologize - my ass.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I asked a ****ing question. If you aren't man enough to admit your
mistake and apologize for it, so be it.

So be it.

Well, gosh, if Bush did it then a little on the side is OK for Obama,
right? (That's called the 'Bush Rationale', which you did quite well.)

Is Haliburton not employed by Obama also? Perhaps there is more there
than meets the eye. Could 'Bama be getting as much from Halliburton
(aka 'KBR') as Cheney ever dreamed of (in your mind?

http://www.crocodyl.org/wiki/kbr
--
Loogy says:

Conservative = Good
Liberal = Bad

I agree. John H