On 7/19/2012 4:31 PM, Leon wrote:
On 7/18/2012 8:44 PM, Richard wrote:
On 7/18/2012 6:15 PM, Leon wrote:

So uh like, ummmm Han! ;~) You think CO2 is a bad thing and should be
curbed as much as feasible but not enough to buy a greener vehicle???


Interesting fallacy...

I'm curious about how that "greener" vehicle (mostly plastic) was made
without any environmental impact...

Me too, the greenies seem to think that because there is no pollution
coming out of the tail pipe that there is no pollution.

Hook up a couple of horses - but no, they have "pollution" coming
out of the "tail pipe" too.

And its not exactly invisible either.

Han wrote:

Since the beginning of 2001, the price of NG has dropped from
$6.82/1000 cu ft to $1.89.

You missed the "in part" I mentioned. As more power plants switch or
get newly built to use natural gas, the excess supply will decrease.
They're building or are going to build a liquified natural gas plant
somewhere in the South. Originally meant to be for importing LNG, it
is now being modified for export. That'll take some of the supply to
other countries (Japan? China?). All great for the US economy.
Perhaps less so for the people living near the wells (Larry J?).

Ah, but we're FINDING recoverable gas at eleven times the rate we're USING
the gas.

As for the folks living NEAR the wells, they're getting rich from the
royalties.

Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Han" wrote:

Lew, English is my second language, can you explain what you mean in
simpler language?

------------------------------
If you buy somebody a book and instead of reading it they eat the
book's cover, there is not much point in buying that person a book in
the first place.


If you give a hungry man a book, he can feed himself for a day. If you teach
a hungry man to read, he's still hungry.

Larry Jaques wrote:

We're too late on that count. Big Oil actually got the gov't to allow
them to BYPASS the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act for their
production of natural gas via fracking. They have a license to taint
all the air and water they want, and we can't do a damned thing about
it. I'd like to see come CONgresscritter heads taken off as a result
of that little treasonous act against the people of the USA. Ditto
the pact they made with Big Pharma in Medicare Part D.


Huh?

There are NO federal regulations on fracking and never have been. There was
nothing to bypass, by Big Oil or anybody else. Licenses are not issued by
anybody for fracking. In addition, Congress has never been involved in
fracking, either in favor or in opposition.

Further, most fracking extractions are not owned or operated by Big Oil -
they were developed by independent operators who sell the output to NG
production companies, most of which have no connection to the seven major
oil companies.

If you have any information to the contrary, I'd be really interested in
seeing it.

On 7/20/2012 3:56 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 15:47:13 -0500, wrote:

On 7/20/2012 12:48 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 11:12:59 -0500, wrote:

On 7/20/2012 9:31 AM, Richard wrote:
On 7/20/2012 7:56 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 7/19/2012 11:53 AM, Richard wrote:

Real scientist do not attempt to PROVE any theory.
They try to DIS-prove it.
Because all the positive proofs in the world fall to one simple
disproof. That's how science works.

That's the problem with the "science" being offered in this case.
Theory is being offered as proof.

The only branch of science that does that is political science.

Bingo ... give that man a case of MinWax.



LOL. Well, almost.
I kinda skipped the part about the hypothesis coming first.
But in this crowd ...

A minor issue ... your point rose well above any semantic argument.

The point of the "semantic argument" was that not all "theories" are created
equal. The "theory of AGW" is no such thing, regardless of what the AGW nuts
say. It is an hypothesis, no more. The "Theory of Gravitation" is the
counterexample. The issue is science, not religion.


Anyway, thanks for the Minwax!

Excluded, of course, is any anticipated use on cherry ...


While that is all perfectly true, one must always consider the audience
when writing anything.

Say "hi-poth-o-sys" and watch eyes glaze over before the last syllable
comes out. The great unwashed masses just don't "get it".

But they know the words "theory" and "proof" (if not the meanings).

OK, let's stipulate that in laymen's terms "theory" becomes "proof" and
"hypothesis" becomes "theory". We can't talk about the "Theory of
gravitation" and the "theory of AGW" with equivalence. The former becomes the
"proof (or law) of gravity"; it has been "proven". You gotta be consistent
with your terms or all meaning goes out the window (the whole purpose of moral
equivalence - to make all meaning disappear). Science just doesn't work that
way.

By the way, would you like a fresh can of Minwax?
I seem to have a surplus here...

;-)


Ok, I see I still haven't conveyed the message I was trying for yet.

So perhaps I should define my terms?

Great Unwashed Masses - laymen, the common man, those who never read a
book, but vote. You know, morons.

Theory - what someone says that they disagree with.

Proof - what someone said that they DO agree with

Science - some mystical religion that makes no sense.

Gravitation - yet anotehr four syllable word (that makes no sense)

On 7/19/2012 8:48 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:

We're too late on that count. Big Oil actually got the gov't to allow
them to BYPASS the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act for their

(snipped really good rant (because it wasn't working...)

No, actually not.

The electricity generators got hit today.

Oil will be coming soon.

http://247wallst.com/2012/07/20/fede...-quality-rule/

"HeyBub" wrote in
:

Han wrote:

Since the beginning of 2001, the price of NG has dropped from
$6.82/1000 cu ft to $1.89.

You missed the "in part" I mentioned. As more power plants switch or
get newly built to use natural gas, the excess supply will decrease.
They're building or are going to build a liquified natural gas plant
somewhere in the South. Originally meant to be for importing LNG, it
is now being modified for export. That'll take some of the supply to
other countries (Japan? China?). All great for the US economy.
Perhaps less so for the people living near the wells (Larry J?).

Ah, but we're FINDING recoverable gas at eleven times the rate we're
USING the gas.

If that is really true, it may mean a) that our future is guaranteed in
terms of energy from NG. Or, b) that the free market system of supply
and demand isn't quite working, or at least has some hysteresis in it.

As for the folks living NEAR the wells, they're getting rich from the
royalties.

Some may be, others are getting screwed. The mineral rights are
sometimes divorced from the surface property rights, and even if the
property owners own the mineral rights, the fracking lawyers are
"smarter" than the old folks sitting in their rocking chairs, or trying
to make ends meet on a damaged farm.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Larry Jaques wrote:

We're too late on that count. Big Oil actually got the gov't to allow
them to BYPASS the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act for their
production of natural gas via fracking. They have a license to taint
all the air and water they want, and we can't do a damned thing about
it. I'd like to see come CONgresscritter heads taken off as a result
of that little treasonous act against the people of the USA. Ditto
the pact they made with Big Pharma in Medicare Part D.


Huh?

There are NO federal regulations on fracking and never have been.
There was nothing to bypass, by Big Oil or anybody else. Licenses are
not issued by anybody for fracking. In addition, Congress has never
been involved in fracking, either in favor or in opposition.

Further, most fracking extractions are not owned or operated by Big
Oil - they were developed by independent operators who sell the output
to NG production companies, most of which have no connection to the
seven major oil companies.

If you have any information to the contrary, I'd be really interested
in seeing it.

I believe there are federal regulations that apply to fracking, but
mostly they are local (state or smaller entities). I believe that
fracking in PA requires some permits, and that the companies are
bypassing them by trucking their wastes to OH, or at least interstate
between 2 states. It would be good to have federal regulations (if they
were sufficient, reasonable, consistent, and intelligible), so that
everyone everywhere would be subject to the same rules. Now it is too
easy to circumvent the rules, or say, oh I diodn't know ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Richard wrote in
:

On 7/19/2012 8:48 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:

We're too late on that count. Big Oil actually got the gov't to allow
them to BYPASS the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act for their

(snipped really good rant (because it wasn't working...)

No, actually not.

The electricity generators got hit today.

Oil will be coming soon.

http://247wallst.com/2012/07/20/fede...epa-air-qualit
y-rule/

And those rules are GOOD!!
Oil generally has much less sulfur (right?) and mercury than most/many
forms of coal.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Richard wrote:


While that is all perfectly true, one must always consider the
audience when writing anything.

Say "hi-poth-o-sys" and watch eyes glaze over before the last syllable
comes out. The great unwashed masses just don't "get it".

I suspect more people understand that term than you might like to believe.
Probably not many eyes glazing over - even if you want to believe they are.


But they know the words "theory" and "proof" (if not the meanings).


Of course not - they are all dumb - right?


--

-Mike-

"Han" wrote:
And those rules are GOOD!!
Oil generally has much less sulfur (right?) and mercury than
most/many
forms of coal.
------------------------------
Sulfur is a revenue generator for oil, that's why sulfer recovery
units exist (SRU).

Sulfer sold to H2SO4 producers as well as the ag business.

Lew

On 7/20/2012 6:01 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Richard wrote:


While that is all perfectly true, one must always consider the
audience when writing anything.

Say "hi-poth-o-sys" and watch eyes glaze over before the last syllable
comes out. The great unwashed masses just don't "get it".

I suspect more people understand that term than you might like to believe.
Probably not many eyes glazing over - even if you want to believe they are.


But they know the words "theory" and "proof" (if not the meanings).


Of course not - they are all dumb - right?


I've seen it, Mike.

Are you going to tell me next that the 50% of the people who are
(technically) below average - really aren't?

On 7/17/2012 2:57 PM, Leon wrote:
A new analysis of 2,000 years of tree ring data has quickly made climate
change deniers' list of greatest hits to the theory of man made global
warming.

Anyone interested in the issue should read the IPCC findings on what a
poor job they had been doing themselves with regard to, but not limited
to, the following:

Conflicts of interest; disregarding of controversial review comments;
genuine controversies not being adequately reflected in their reports;
not following their own guidelines about policies formulated on
statements of high confidence, but little evidence; lack of
transparency; due consideration not given to properly documented
alternative views; not policing unpublished and non-peer-reviewed
sources; lack of procedures to changes to reduce opportunities for
political interference with scientific results; not ensuring that the
main conclusions in its assessment reports are underpinned by
appropriately referenced peer-reviewed sources or, to the greatest
extent practical, by openly accessible databases.

The recommending of these interdepartmental changes is arguably a tacit
admission that many of their previous reports may have been based on
flawed science, were not peer reviewed, and many may have been
politically motivated.

Interesting reading, considering the source ... the mother of the AGW
movement:

http://reviewipcc.interacademycounci...onclusions.pdf

What else would you expect ... "trust but verify", without the
verification, is naught but a fool's practice.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On 7/20/12 7:40 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 7/17/2012 2:57 PM, Leon wrote:
A new analysis of 2,000 years of tree ring data has quickly made climate
change deniers' list of greatest hits to the theory of man made global
warming.

Anyone interested in the issue should read the IPCC findings on what a
poor job they had been doing themselves with regard to, but not limited
to, the following:

Conflicts of interest; disregarding of controversial review comments;
genuine controversies not being adequately reflected in their reports;
not following their own guidelines about policies formulated on
statements of high confidence, but little evidence; lack of
transparency; due consideration not given to properly documented
alternative views; not policing unpublished and non-peer-reviewed
sources; lack of procedures to changes to reduce opportunities for
political interference with scientific results; not ensuring that the
main conclusions in its assessment reports are underpinned by
appropriately referenced peer-reviewed sources or, to the greatest
extent practical, by openly accessible databases.

The recommending of these interdepartmental changes is arguably a tacit
admission that many of their previous reports may have been based on
flawed science, were not peer reviewed, and many may have been
politically motivated.

Interesting reading, considering the source ... the mother of the AGW
movement:

http://reviewipcc.interacademycounci...onclusions.pdf


What else would you expect ... "trust but verify", without the
verification, is naught but a fool's practice.


Unfortunately, the horses... pulling a carriage full of politically
corrupt government mandates designed to redistribute global wealth and
make Al Gore incredibly wealthy (his will not be redistributed,
however)... have already left the barn.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 16:02:49 -0500, Swingman wrote:

On 7/20/2012 3:56 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

OK, let's stipulate that in laymen's terms "theory" becomes "proof" and
"hypothesis" becomes "theory". We can't talk about the "Theory of
gravitation" and the "theory of AGW" with equivalence. The former becomes the
"proof (or law) of gravity"; it has been "proven". You gotta be consistent
with your terms or all meaning goes out the window (the whole purpose of moral
equivalence - to make all meaning disappear). Science just doesn't work that
way.

Yabbut, some scientist are apparently equally adept at splitting hairs,
as splitting atoms. g

They're the type who forgot that they were supposed to be neutral and
"took sides", accepting The True Belief about AGWK.

P.S: Genetic scientists are also adept at splitting hares.

--
Win first, Fight later.

--martial principle of the Samurai

On 20 Jul 2012 21:44:53 GMT, Han wrote:

Richard wrote in
:

On 7/19/2012 8:48 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:

We're too late on that count. Big Oil actually got the gov't to allow
them to BYPASS the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act for their

(snipped really good rant (because it wasn't working...)

No, actually not.

The electricity generators got hit today.

Oil will be coming soon.

http://247wallst.com/2012/07/20/fede...epa-air-qualit
y-rule/

And those rules are GOOD!!
Oil generally has much less sulfur (right?) and mercury than most/many
forms of coal.

With the exception of the Russian meltdown, no nuke plant in history
has ever released the amount of radioactive waste a coal plant
generates on a daily basis, either.

--
Win first, Fight later.

--martial principle of the Samurai

Larry Jaques wrote:


With the exception of the Russian meltdown, no nuke plant in history
has ever released the amount of radioactive waste a coal plant
generates on a daily basis, either.

That statement might just benefit from a second thought...

--

-Mike-

On 7/20/2012 10:25 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Larry Jaques wrote:


With the exception of the Russian meltdown, no nuke plant in history
has ever released the amount of radioactive waste a coal plant
generates on a daily basis, either.

That statement might just benefit from a second thought...


Great Big +1



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear...tion_accidents

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear..._by_death_toll


U.S. Nuclear Accidents
http://www.lutins.org/nukes.html


and, of course, that doesn't include radiation events that were done
intentionally, like the 1000 open air tests from the 50s to 70s.
(not accidents - unless you lived on Bikini Island. That wasn't an
accident. It was a crime).
http://home.comcast.net/~glenncheney/testing.htm


From American Cancer Society...
http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerC...uclear-weapons

There is little doubt that high-dose radiation exposure can cause
cancer. This has become clear from studies of groups such as the
survivors of the atomic blasts in Japan, where the risks of certain
cancers such as leukemias and thyroid cancers were higher than normal.
Some issues, however, are not as clear, such as the amount of exposure
required, and the types of cancer that radiation can cause.

In the late 1970s, a higher than usual number of cases of leukemia was
seen among the troops present at the "Smokey" nuclear test in Nevada in
August 1957. The question arose as to whether these cases were caused by
radiation from the nuclear tests. Although the rate of leukemia was
higher than expected, rates for all cancers combined were actually lower
than expected, making the results difficult to interpret. Some cancers
are known to have a long latency period – that is, they do not appear
until decades after the exposure. The reason for the high leukemia rates
of the "Smokey" test remains unexplained.

Well, it's a LONG list of links...

An addendum...


The Nevada Paradox: How Atmospheric Bomb Tests Made Americans Paranoid
About Nuclear Power


US citizens over age 50 (the Harry Reid demographic) had their
childhoods shadowed by decades of terrifying atomic weapon tests. This
demographic typifies baby boomers, and Tea Partiers. It is they who have
passed their atomic fears on to Gen X'rs and beyond.

Ground zero for US atmospheric bomb testing was Nevada (as pictured).
Counties in the Great Plains and inter-mountain west states received the
highest radiation levels (see below for historic, radio-iodine dose map).


Doses aside, the whole nation breathed anxiety and prayed for it to go
away. We learned, in our strontium-90-laced bones, that the pairing of
all things atomic with government could mean danger, in ways that no
human had ever faced before.



We learned to be cynical about what our government told us. Trust
evaporated.Yucca Mountain - the cavernous but yet unused waste
repository designed to safely hold all manner of high-level rad waste is
in the same general area as where the bombs were open-air tested.

Have a look at the test-related, historic Iodine-131 dose map shown
below and tell me if you can figure out why folks out west still aren't
too keen about storing rad waste? This map indicates why government
plans to permanently store spent reactor rods there are viewed as a
paradox when used in the same sentence as "safely " - e.g. an apparently
'self-contradictory proposition.'

Note: Population centers with the highest nuclear power production
capacities and also the greatest earthquake risk are outside much of the
peak dose area.)


(from the official TreeHuggers themselves!)
http://www.treehugger.com/renewable-...ear-power.html

On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 16:26:34 -0500, Richard wrote:

On 7/20/2012 3:56 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 15:47:13 -0500, wrote:

On 7/20/2012 12:48 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 11:12:59 -0500, wrote:

On 7/20/2012 9:31 AM, Richard wrote:
On 7/20/2012 7:56 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 7/19/2012 11:53 AM, Richard wrote:

Real scientist do not attempt to PROVE any theory.
They try to DIS-prove it.
Because all the positive proofs in the world fall to one simple
disproof. That's how science works.

That's the problem with the "science" being offered in this case.
Theory is being offered as proof.

The only branch of science that does that is political science.

Bingo ... give that man a case of MinWax.



LOL. Well, almost.
I kinda skipped the part about the hypothesis coming first.
But in this crowd ...

A minor issue ... your point rose well above any semantic argument.

The point of the "semantic argument" was that not all "theories" are created
equal. The "theory of AGW" is no such thing, regardless of what the AGW nuts
say. It is an hypothesis, no more. The "Theory of Gravitation" is the
counterexample. The issue is science, not religion.


Anyway, thanks for the Minwax!

Excluded, of course, is any anticipated use on cherry ...


While that is all perfectly true, one must always consider the audience
when writing anything.

Say "hi-poth-o-sys" and watch eyes glaze over before the last syllable
comes out. The great unwashed masses just don't "get it".

But they know the words "theory" and "proof" (if not the meanings).

OK, let's stipulate that in laymen's terms "theory" becomes "proof" and
"hypothesis" becomes "theory". We can't talk about the "Theory of
gravitation" and the "theory of AGW" with equivalence. The former becomes the
"proof (or law) of gravity"; it has been "proven". You gotta be consistent
with your terms or all meaning goes out the window (the whole purpose of moral
equivalence - to make all meaning disappear). Science just doesn't work that
way.

By the way, would you like a fresh can of Minwax?
I seem to have a surplus here...

;-)


Ok, I see I still haven't conveyed the message I was trying for yet.

So perhaps I should define my terms?

Great Unwashed Masses - laymen, the common man, those who never read a
book, but vote. You know, morons.

Theory - what someone says that they disagree with.

Proof - what someone said that they DO agree with

Science - some mystical religion that makes no sense.

Gravitation - yet anotehr four syllable word (that makes no sense)

Without a common language communication is impossible. If you aren't willing
to speak in at least a consistent language, well, you get where we are. That
doesn't make it something to cherish.

Han wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in
:

Han wrote:

Since the beginning of 2001, the price of NG has dropped from
$6.82/1000 cu ft to $1.89.

You missed the "in part" I mentioned. As more power plants switch
or get newly built to use natural gas, the excess supply will
decrease. They're building or are going to build a liquified
natural gas plant somewhere in the South. Originally meant to be
for importing LNG, it is now being modified for export. That'll
take some of the supply to other countries (Japan? China?). All
great for the US economy. Perhaps less so for the people living
near the wells (Larry J?).

Ah, but we're FINDING recoverable gas at eleven times the rate we're
USING the gas.

If that is really true, it may mean a) that our future is guaranteed
in terms of energy from NG. Or, b) that the free market system of
supply and demand isn't quite working, or at least has some
hysteresis in it.

As for the folks living NEAR the wells, they're getting rich from the
royalties.

Some may be, others are getting screwed. The mineral rights are
sometimes divorced from the surface property rights, and even if the
property owners own the mineral rights, the fracking lawyers are
"smarter" than the old folks sitting in their rocking chairs, or
trying to make ends meet on a damaged farm.

You make an excellent point - if it was true. There are virtually NO
"damaged" farms directly attributable to fracking. If you know of one, I'd
sure like to hear about it.

Han wrote:

Huh?

There are NO federal regulations on fracking and never have been.
There was nothing to bypass, by Big Oil or anybody else. Licenses are
not issued by anybody for fracking. In addition, Congress has never
been involved in fracking, either in favor or in opposition.

Further, most fracking extractions are not owned or operated by Big
Oil - they were developed by independent operators who sell the
output to NG production companies, most of which have no connection
to the seven major oil companies.

If you have any information to the contrary, I'd be really interested
in seeing it.

I believe there are federal regulations that apply to fracking, but
mostly they are local (state or smaller entities). I believe that
fracking in PA requires some permits, and that the companies are
bypassing them by trucking their wastes to OH, or at least interstate
between 2 states. It would be good to have federal regulations (if
they were sufficient, reasonable, consistent, and intelligible), so
that everyone everywhere would be subject to the same rules. Now it
is too easy to circumvent the rules, or say, oh I diodn't know ...

You're sorta correct and I misspoke. There are STATE regulations on fracking
but there are NO federal regulations on fracking. A lot of people in eastern
Pennsylvania are getting rich from fracked natural gas while their
neighbors, just across the state line in western New York are really ****ed
because New York doesn't allow the process.

In the early days of fracking, there was some waste; companies dumped the
semi-polluted water anywhere they pleased. Now, however, all the water used
is reclaimed. There is NO waste connected with fracking.

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Han wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in
:

Han wrote:

Since the beginning of 2001, the price of NG has dropped from
$6.82/1000 cu ft to $1.89.

You missed the "in part" I mentioned. As more power plants switch
or get newly built to use natural gas, the excess supply will
decrease. They're building or are going to build a liquified
natural gas plant somewhere in the South. Originally meant to be
for importing LNG, it is now being modified for export. That'll
take some of the supply to other countries (Japan? China?). All
great for the US economy. Perhaps less so for the people living
near the wells (Larry J?).

Ah, but we're FINDING recoverable gas at eleven times the rate we're
USING the gas.

If that is really true, it may mean a) that our future is guaranteed
in terms of energy from NG. Or, b) that the free market system of
supply and demand isn't quite working, or at least has some
hysteresis in it.

As for the folks living NEAR the wells, they're getting rich from
the royalties.

Some may be, others are getting screwed. The mineral rights are
sometimes divorced from the surface property rights, and even if the
property owners own the mineral rights, the fracking lawyers are
"smarter" than the old folks sitting in their rocking chairs, or
trying to make ends meet on a damaged farm.

You make an excellent point - if it was true. There are virtually NO
"damaged" farms directly attributable to fracking. If you know of one,
I'd sure like to hear about it.

Why don't you look?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Han wrote:

Huh?

There are NO federal regulations on fracking and never have been.
There was nothing to bypass, by Big Oil or anybody else. Licenses
are not issued by anybody for fracking. In addition, Congress has
never been involved in fracking, either in favor or in opposition.

Further, most fracking extractions are not owned or operated by Big
Oil - they were developed by independent operators who sell the
output to NG production companies, most of which have no connection
to the seven major oil companies.

If you have any information to the contrary, I'd be really
interested in seeing it.

I believe there are federal regulations that apply to fracking, but
mostly they are local (state or smaller entities). I believe that
fracking in PA requires some permits, and that the companies are
bypassing them by trucking their wastes to OH, or at least interstate
between 2 states. It would be good to have federal regulations (if
they were sufficient, reasonable, consistent, and intelligible), so
that everyone everywhere would be subject to the same rules. Now it
is too easy to circumvent the rules, or say, oh I diodn't know ...

You're sorta correct and I misspoke. There are STATE regulations on
fracking but there are NO federal regulations on fracking. A lot of
people in eastern Pennsylvania are getting rich from fracked natural
gas while their neighbors, just across the state line in western New
York are really ****ed because New York doesn't allow the process.

In the early days of fracking, there was some waste; companies dumped
the semi-polluted water anywhere they pleased. Now, however, all the
water used is reclaimed. There is NO waste connected with fracking.

There was until recently at least a scarcity of effective regulation of
waste disposal. I don't believe that there is no waste with fracking.
You mean to say that all the drilling fluids and all the fracking fluids
disappear into the earth? That I do not believe. I am hopeful that the
wastes are disposed of in compliance with all regulations, but I am
fearful that they still truck waste out of the state where it cannot be
dumped to states where it IS "legal".

I am sure there are people who are jealous of the money made by others
over in the next state. Just like there are people furious they signed
contracts they didn't understand, and who are stiffed out of what they
thought they were going to get. Legal and all that stuff, but still ...


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 22 Jul 2012 01:59:55 GMT, Han wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in
om:

Han wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in
:

Han wrote:

Since the beginning of 2001, the price of NG has dropped from
$6.82/1000 cu ft to $1.89.

You missed the "in part" I mentioned. As more power plants switch
or get newly built to use natural gas, the excess supply will
decrease. They're building or are going to build a liquified
natural gas plant somewhere in the South. Originally meant to be
for importing LNG, it is now being modified for export. That'll
take some of the supply to other countries (Japan? China?). All
great for the US economy. Perhaps less so for the people living
near the wells (Larry J?).

Ah, but we're FINDING recoverable gas at eleven times the rate we're
USING the gas.

If that is really true, it may mean a) that our future is guaranteed
in terms of energy from NG. Or, b) that the free market system of
supply and demand isn't quite working, or at least has some
hysteresis in it.

As for the folks living NEAR the wells, they're getting rich from
the royalties.

Some may be, others are getting screwed. The mineral rights are
sometimes divorced from the surface property rights, and even if the
property owners own the mineral rights, the fracking lawyers are
"smarter" than the old folks sitting in their rocking chairs, or
trying to make ends meet on a damaged farm.

You make an excellent point - if it was true. There are virtually NO
"damaged" farms directly attributable to fracking. If you know of one,
I'd sure like to hear about it.

Why don't you look?

Han, are you really asking him to prove a negative with a straight face?

On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 05:45:57 -0700, Larry Jaques

Now I get it. You only visit here to whine.

In article ,
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:
[HEAVY snipping]


So uh like, ummmm Han! ;~) You think CO2 is a bad thing and should be
curbed as much as feasible but not enough to buy a greener vehicle???

The responsibility is every one else's ???

Maybe not bad enough or causing enough trouble that "you" should
change... ;~)


LOL

So many things that are now labelled green, aren't.
Take a look at the stuff they put in Prius batteries. Oh yummy.
One of the biggest NON-green cars is made my a company which brags about
their 'greenness'. (Volkswagen Taureg(sp?)
A well tuned 327ci Chevy engine from the late 60's can run as clean as
anything we've got today.
But it seems that the only way to fix anything politically is to throw
buckets of bull**** at it.
"Make it LOOK green."

On 7/22/12 10:47 AM, Robatoy wrote:
In article ,
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:
[HEAVY snipping]


So uh like, ummmm Han! ;~) You think CO2 is a bad thing and should be
curbed as much as feasible but not enough to buy a greener vehicle???

The responsibility is every one else's ???

Maybe not bad enough or causing enough trouble that "you" should
change... ;~)


LOL

So many things that are now labelled green, aren't.
Take a look at the stuff they put in Prius batteries. Oh yummy.
One of the biggest NON-green cars is made my a company which brags about
their 'greenness'. (Volkswagen Taureg(sp?)
A well tuned 327ci Chevy engine from the late 60's can run as clean as
anything we've got today.
But it seems that the only way to fix anything politically is to throw
buckets of bull**** at it.
"Make it LOOK green."


I read an article that showed the average electric/hybrid car has a much
larger carbon footprint than a gasoline car, when you look at its total
life, from manufacturing to disposal.

This isn't the original article, but it explains it well enough.
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/06/1...een-after-all/


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 7/22/2012 10:47 AM, Robatoy wrote:
In article ,
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:
[HEAVY snipping]


So uh like, ummmm Han! ;~) You think CO2 is a bad thing and should be
curbed as much as feasible but not enough to buy a greener vehicle???

The responsibility is every one else's ???

Maybe not bad enough or causing enough trouble that "you" should
change... ;~)


LOL

So many things that are now labelled green, aren't.
Take a look at the stuff they put in Prius batteries. Oh yummy.
One of the biggest NON-green cars is made my a company which brags about
their 'greenness'. (Volkswagen Taureg(sp?)
A well tuned 327ci Chevy engine from the late 60's can run as clean as
anything we've got today.
But it seems that the only way to fix anything politically is to throw
buckets of bull**** at it.
"Make it LOOK green."



Exactly my point to the greenies, The Hummer was better for the
environment than the Prius when you consider the energy to

Manufacture, Operate, and Dispose of when their life cycles have been
reached.


I think greenies believe that two cars built and operated the same
pollute the same unless one them is painted green.

On 7/22/2012 11:28 AM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
In article ,
-MIKE- wrote:

I read an article that showed the average electric/hybrid car has a much
larger carbon footprint than a gasoline car, when you look at its total
life, from manufacturing to disposal.

Where did you read this article? Petroleum times?



Actually many common magazines have reported this fact.

Google it, you will find it.

On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 13:33:18 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
I think greenies believe that two cars built and operated the same
pollute the same unless one them is painted green.

WHAT? You mean you haven't read the factually confirmed,
scientifically proven article that air might slipstream over a green
car more easily than other coloured cars?

Geez Leon. Stay up to date!

Han wrote:

Some may be, others are getting screwed. The mineral rights are
sometimes divorced from the surface property rights, and even if the
property owners own the mineral rights, the fracking lawyers are
"smarter" than the old folks sitting in their rocking chairs, or
trying to make ends meet on a damaged farm.

You make an excellent point - if it was true. There are virtually NO
"damaged" farms directly attributable to fracking. If you know of
one, I'd sure like to hear about it.

Why don't you look?

What makes you think I didn't? That I couldn't find one?

Well, I did look. I DID find several accounts of "damage" to surface
installations but the cause of such damage is: a) rank speculation with no
empirical proof, or b) symptoms (i.e., flaming water from wells) that
existed long before fracking was even invented.

Now if YOU know of a credible example, I'd much appreciate your sharing it
with me.

Han wrote:

You're sorta correct and I misspoke. There are STATE regulations on
fracking but there are NO federal regulations on fracking. A lot of
people in eastern Pennsylvania are getting rich from fracked natural
gas while their neighbors, just across the state line in western New
York are really ****ed because New York doesn't allow the process.

In the early days of fracking, there was some waste; companies dumped
the semi-polluted water anywhere they pleased. Now, however, all the
water used is reclaimed. There is NO waste connected with fracking.

There was until recently at least a scarcity of effective regulation
of waste disposal. I don't believe that there is no waste with
fracking. You mean to say that all the drilling fluids and all the
fracking fluids disappear into the earth? That I do not believe. I
am hopeful that the wastes are disposed of in compliance with all
regulations, but I am fearful that they still truck waste out of the
state where it cannot be dumped to states where it IS "legal".


Consider:

"Spent or used fracturing fluids are normally recovered at the initial stage
of well production and recycled in a closed system for future use or
disposed of under regulation, either by surface discharge where authorized
under the Clean Water Act or by injection into Class II wells as authorized
under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Regulation may also allow recovered
fracturing fluids to be disposed of at appropriate commercial facilities.
Not all fracturing fluid returns to the surface."
http://www.energyfromshale.org/hydra...acturing-fluid

There are many other references under fracking+fluid+recovery

I don't think anybody trucks tens of millions of gallons of water across
state lines...

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Han wrote:

You're sorta correct and I misspoke. There are STATE regulations on
fracking but there are NO federal regulations on fracking. A lot of
people in eastern Pennsylvania are getting rich from fracked natural
gas while their neighbors, just across the state line in western New
York are really ****ed because New York doesn't allow the process.

In the early days of fracking, there was some waste; companies
dumped the semi-polluted water anywhere they pleased. Now, however,
all the water used is reclaimed. There is NO waste connected with
fracking.

There was until recently at least a scarcity of effective regulation
of waste disposal. I don't believe that there is no waste with
fracking. You mean to say that all the drilling fluids and all the
fracking fluids disappear into the earth? That I do not believe. I
am hopeful that the wastes are disposed of in compliance with all
regulations, but I am fearful that they still truck waste out of the
state where it cannot be dumped to states where it IS "legal".


Consider:

"Spent or used fracturing fluids are normally recovered at the initial
stage of well production and recycled in a closed system for future
use or disposed of under regulation, either by surface discharge where
authorized under the Clean Water Act or by injection into Class II
wells as authorized under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Regulation may
also allow recovered fracturing fluids to be disposed of at
appropriate commercial facilities. Not all fracturing fluid returns to
the surface."
http://www.energyfromshale.org/hydra...acturing-fluid

Exactly. Waste is generated and (supposedly) disposed of properly.
Except when the loopholes allow disposal in a cheaper way that fulfills
all legal requirements, except the spirit of the law.

There are many other references under fracking+fluid+recovery

I don't think anybody trucks tens of millions of gallons of water
across state lines...

The report I saw, as quoted in the New York Times - IIRC, mentioned
trucking of waste water accross state borders. I don't recall the
quantities. Large tanker trucks hold up to about 10,000 gallons. So
ONLY about 100 truck loads is a million gallons ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote:


Exactly. Waste is generated and (supposedly) disposed of properly.
Except when the loopholes allow disposal in a cheaper way that
fulfills all legal requirements, except the spirit of the law.

So Han - is it disposed of properly or not? Or is that "spriti of the law"
crap just your way of saying that you don't like the legal way it is being
done? Spirit of the law is quite different from illegal.



The report I saw, as quoted in the New York Times - IIRC, mentioned
trucking of waste water accross state borders. I don't recall the
quantities. Large tanker trucks hold up to about 10,000 gallons. So
ONLY about 100 truck loads is a million gallons ...

So - you do not recall quantities and you are not even sure if it mentioned
trucking across state boundaries. Yet... you feel comfortable in rolling up
numbers like 10,000 gallons. Sure - roll irrelevant numbers just so that
you can achieve an impressive total that makes for a very inflamatory
statement. Hell be damned if it is accurate or even relevant. You need to
ground your thoughts better Han.

--

-Mike-

"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

Han wrote:


Exactly. Waste is generated and (supposedly) disposed of properly.
Except when the loopholes allow disposal in a cheaper way that
fulfills all legal requirements, except the spirit of the law.

So Han - is it disposed of properly or not? Or is that "spriti of the
law" crap just your way of saying that you don't like the legal way it
is being done? Spirit of the law is quite different from illegal.

Come on Mike. It is not legal to dump more than x gallons of waste
containing y ppm of this in the public water ways. So, dilute it 10-fold
and then dump it. Or read any of the vignettes here
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/u...WN_SERIES.html
to get an idea.

The report I saw, as quoted in the New York Times - IIRC, mentioned
trucking of waste water accross state borders. I don't recall the
quantities. Large tanker trucks hold up to about 10,000 gallons. So
ONLY about 100 truck loads is a million gallons ...

So - you do not recall quantities and you are not even sure if it
mentioned trucking across state boundaries. Yet... you feel
comfortable in rolling up numbers like 10,000 gallons. Sure - roll
irrelevant numbers just so that you can achieve an impressive total
that makes for a very inflamatory statement. Hell be damned if it is
accurate or even relevant. You need to ground your thoughts better
Han.

I wish I could express myself better. This is what I did. I looked up
the capacity of tanker trucks. Stated as up to 9,000 gallons, so for
ease of calculations I rounded it up to 10,000 gallons. Yes I
exagerated, so what. The question was about "millions of gallons of
waste being trucked or not. By using the 10,000 gallon figure it was
easy to see that a mere 100 or so trips with just 1 truck would reach 1
million gallons. The above links also talk about the danger of
overworked truck drivers (being asked to drive more and longer than is
really legal) and the accidents they cause or can cause.

Again, just to make sure you know where I stand. I am in favor of
fracking to make available energy sources that are in principle fairly
clean, economical and plentiful. It's just that it should be done safely
and properly.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

Han wrote:


Exactly. Waste is generated and (supposedly) disposed of properly.
Except when the loopholes allow disposal in a cheaper way that
fulfills all legal requirements, except the spirit of the law.

So Han - is it disposed of properly or not? Or is that "spriti of
the law" crap just your way of saying that you don't like the legal
way it is being done? Spirit of the law is quite different from
illegal.

Come on Mike. It is not legal to dump more than x gallons of waste
containing y ppm of this in the public water ways. So, dilute it
10-fold and then dump it. Or read any of the vignettes here
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/u...WN_SERIES.html
to get an idea.

I will read that link Han but first - I have to ask why you point to
something if it (by your own words) is less than any controlled levels.
Maybe upon reading the link I will come back at you with a different
perspective, but I am suspicious right now...




I wish I could express myself better. This is what I did. I looked
up the capacity of tanker trucks. Stated as up to 9,000 gallons, so
for ease of calculations I rounded it up to 10,000 gallons. Yes I
exagerated, so what. The question was about "millions of gallons of
waste being trucked or not. By using the 10,000 gallon figure it was
easy to see that a mere 100 or so trips with just 1 truck would reach
1 million gallons. The above links also talk about the danger of
overworked truck drivers (being asked to drive more and longer than is
really legal) and the accidents they cause or can cause.

I don't mean to drill down to the absurd level of detail that tries to
differentiate between 1,000 gallons and 1,100 gallons. You were quite
correct in rounding up in my opinion.

But - where do those millions of gallons of figures come from?


Again, just to make sure you know where I stand. I am in favor of
fracking to make available energy sources that are in principle fairly
clean, economical and plentiful. It's just that it should be done
safely and properly.

We are not at all far apart in that concept. I am not anti-fracking.

--

-Mike-

"Mike Marlow" wrote in news:79832$500d84ef
:

Han wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

Han wrote:


Exactly. Waste is generated and (supposedly) disposed of properly.
Except when the loopholes allow disposal in a cheaper way that
fulfills all legal requirements, except the spirit of the law.

So Han - is it disposed of properly or not? Or is that "spriti of
the law" crap just your way of saying that you don't like the legal
way it is being done? Spirit of the law is quite different from
illegal.

Come on Mike. It is not legal to dump more than x gallons of waste
containing y ppm of this in the public water ways. So, dilute it
10-fold and then dump it. Or read any of the vignettes here
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/u...WN_SERIES.html
to get an idea.

I will read that link Han but first - I have to ask why you point to
something if it (by your own words) is less than any controlled levels.
Maybe upon reading the link I will come back at you with a different
perspective, but I am suspicious right now...




I wish I could express myself better. This is what I did. I looked
up the capacity of tanker trucks. Stated as up to 9,000 gallons, so
for ease of calculations I rounded it up to 10,000 gallons. Yes I
exagerated, so what. The question was about "millions of gallons of
waste being trucked or not. By using the 10,000 gallon figure it was
easy to see that a mere 100 or so trips with just 1 truck would reach
1 million gallons. The above links also talk about the danger of
overworked truck drivers (being asked to drive more and longer than is
really legal) and the accidents they cause or can cause.

I don't mean to drill down to the absurd level of detail that tries to
differentiate between 1,000 gallons and 1,100 gallons. You were quite
correct in rounding up in my opinion.

But - where do those millions of gallons of figures come from?

Mentioned by Heybub in the post I was answering to.

Again, just to make sure you know where I stand. I am in favor of
fracking to make available energy sources that are in principle fairly
clean, economical and plentiful. It's just that it should be done
safely and properly.

We are not at all far apart in that concept. I am not anti-fracking.

I hope you also think that disposing of waste water that contains
hazardous substances is wrong. And I know that almost anything is bad if
the concentration or qunatity is high enough ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 7/23/12 12:18 PM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
In article ,
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:
On 7/22/2012 11:28 AM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
I read an article that showed the average electric/hybrid car has a much
larger carbon footprint than a gasoline car, when you look at its total
life, from manufacturing to disposal.

Actually many common magazines have reported this fact.

Google it, you will find it.

OK, I did. Hybrid/electric cars has a larger carbon footprint during
the manufacturing process, but a lower footprint over their lifetimes.

The only studies I saw that said otherwise assumed that the conventional
car would last 300,000 miles while the hybrid would last 100,000 miles.
There was no justification for that assumption.

The only place where the electric car loses is when you charge it from
a grid that runs on coal. In that case, it's basically a wash.


Those studies also falsely assume much greater battery life than the
cars are actually getting. There are accounts of cars needing their
entire group of batteries replaced after 7k miles. That's the extreme,
but others need replacement several times over the life of the car.
Those batteries now have to be disposed of and the carbon footprint of
their replacements added to that car's.

The real problem with these "hybrids" is two fold. They are a solution
to a fictional problem. And effectively don't get better mileage than
their counterparts. To me, they need to get double or triple the mileage
to even be considered. 80's Honda Civics got better mileage. The new VW
clean-diesel get's better mileage than most of them.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 7/23/2012 9:00 PM, Dave in Texas wrote:

Right. I continue to misspeak. I should have said "there is virtually no
waste dumping from a fracking operation."

I'm sure somewhere a valve gets left open for a few minutes...


I think you pretty well addressed everything I spoke to; covered it all
you did.

Dave in Texas





Let me see if I understand this?

They use explosives to fracture rock to get at the natural gas that's
down there SOMEWHERE - but it ONLY comes out at the valve?