trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted September 07, 2005 10:57 AM
 Edited By: trenace on 7 Sep 2005 11:58
quote:
trenace, what you fail to realize is the oil companies are making record profits, they have so much money that they are embarrassed. It just isn't necessary.
Liberal mind? I guess one could say that if one is so far out to the right that Jerry Farwell has to look to his right find you. So relatively I am to the left. I consider myself a bit right of center. I don't like giveaways, I don't like unions, and I am no tree hugger. You want to be a Bush minion and not question anything that genius does....fine. Me I would rather think for myself and question everything the government does.
Hmm... you "think for yourself" (as opposed to simply reciting everything that MoveOn.org and similar groups have to say) and I do not, yet you have no answer but ducking and evading when I ask a simple question such as if you're opposing the free market solution on gasoline, how then do you propose distributing gasoline at only 2/3 the rate as people are used to consuming? Who gets it and who does not, who gets how much?
No answer except false claims of the US having the biggest oil reserves in the world (not true and not relevant as that can do nothing for gasoline today.)
But you call this "thinking for yourself," which you imply I do not, though I gave a reasonably thoughtful analysis that you ignored at every point and refused to answer each item that is a relevant reply to your claims, just ducked 'em.
OK.
Btw, do you now, third try, have a solution better than the free market for this gasoline problem shortage problem where the rate of production is only 2/3 the rate people are used to consuming and so how do make sure it does not run out and keep the country running as smoothly as possible despite this problem, or are you only going to continue attacking the free market (as the left is generally opposed to), and attacking those actually bringing you the gasoline (typical of the left to bite the hand that feeds them, so it's all falling into place) while offering no solution that can handle the problem now yourself?
That's what I call simply being on the attack, and instead of offering anything constructive, just engaging in destructive criticism. Lame enough in ordinary times, in times of crisis though it's all the less of value.
  
|
slug
Pro
Out in search of my mind...
Posts: 1433
|
posted September 07, 2005 11:15 AM
uh oh seems that there is some issue with the levee rebuilding funds
the federal government's "funding" of levee repairs were actually MATCHING FUNDS.
what that means is that for every dollar up to XXX dollars (65 million, or whatever the hated bush administration "cut" levee repair funding to) THAT THE STATE OF LOUISIANA SPENT REPAIRING LEVEES the FEDERAL government would MATCH.
if the state of louisiana NEVER SPENT A FLIPPIN DIME then neither did the federal government.
the federal government's involvement in that project was AT THE REQUEST OF THE STATE.
Bush nor Clinton nor Brown nor FEMA had ANYTHING to do with the levees not getting rebuilt with federal funds. better turn around and look back at the local govenrments that failed to EVEN SPEND THE MONEY THAT THE GOVERNMENT OFFERED THEM.
and it's all bush's fault.
great thinking.
(let's not forget that congress drafts, writes, and approves ALL budgets for the federal government, the president signs it.)
but wait there's more!
tedg: answer a question for ONCE instead of just spewing political BS rhetoric.
define gouging. apply that to gas prices immediately following the shutdown of all of Colonial pipeline's lines from NO, the shutdown of all refineries on that coast, and the disruption in trucking from that area.
   
|
TedG
Moderator
Posts: 8222
|
posted September 07, 2005 12:17 PM
trenace, I actually have the answer to the gasoline problem... motorcycles. Can't argue that one  Also I am not very political, I may read the headlines and a few articles. I had never heard of moveon.org until you mentioned it. My "what attack" comment was with tongue in cheek. My opinion of Bush is either he is a damn genius or a blithering idiot. Maybe both. But either way I don't care for him. Actually maybe it is Karl Rove I dislike. IMHO Bush doesn't plan things well and is too close to the religious right.
____________
Ted
2000 Green ZX12 sold
The fast color!!
Green 2005 ZX10R
2009 Concours Black ABS
|
VincentHill
Needs a life
Posts: 6520
|
posted September 07, 2005 12:34 PM
http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001051313
Slug and others maybe you better read this again. It is the Army Corp of ENgineers that handle the Levees and the Problems with the Mississippi River. This info did not come out of the Washington Post, New York Times but a conservative new Paper compared to them. As Ted says he does not Plan in advance.
____________
Made History @ Daytona and still one fast old man!!
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted September 07, 2005 03:33 PM
Edited By: trenace on 7 Sep 2005 16:48
So is any expert saying the levees would have withstood this hurricane during the Clinton, Carter, Johnson, or Kennedy administrations?
And is any expert actually saying that had every penny asked for since 2001 been given, the levees as of this date would have handled this hurricane?
So far as I know the answer is NO to both.
It's really a bad thing that the polarization in this country has gotten to where Democrats basically as a reflexive reaction scream that Bush is wrong about everything. Bush could say "we should do this," and you can be guaranteed that in a poll 90% of Democrats would say he's wrong... but if he'd said the opposite, then 90% of Democrats would say that THAT is wrong. Because they oppose everything any Republican says or does.
It would be better to look at ideas and issues on their own merits, rather than saying "I hate this guy and so therefore my position on this is the opposite. Whatever he does, I say he's doing a bad job and it's the wrong choice." That is not good even in peacetime -- there is constructive criticism, there is useful debate, and then there's also just stubborn opposition regardless of merits -- but when it comes to wartime and matters involving that war it is worse, in times of crisis like this it is bad too. People get pretty tired of it and if the Democrats ever want to win a national election again they're going to have to learn a new song. Their obstructionist, angry, nothing-but-fighting tune is getting way old. There is a hell of a lot to be done here and blaming Bush isn't going to accomplish a damn thing.
For example here in my hometown the local radio station raised nearly $140,000 for the hurricane victims today. That's doing something. Writing posts blaming someone who did not cause the hurricane, did not cause New Orleans to be below sea level, etc. or blaming the oil companies is accomplishing nothing and furthermore is totally off-base in almost every respect I've seen posted.
Ted, you're right on the motorcycles saving gas, though the ZX-12R does not save so much! Unfortunately that also is not a realistic solution, as an extra tens of millions of motorcycles cannot be produced within days or weeks nor can that many people learn to ride them that fast. The only solution, other than the government dictating how much gas you may buy or the "competition" for limited gas being how long you are willing to wait in line -- and the Arab Oil Embargo and the politicians that chose to impose price caps proved just how monstrously long those lines wind up being -- is the free market. Rail against those who bring you the gas, snap at Atlas' heels, but the fact is that's the best solution man has come up with yet for the equitable and efficient distribution of goods, especially in times of shortage. Your lack of providing any better realistic alternative simply affirms my point.
|
TedG
Moderator
Posts: 8222
|
posted September 07, 2005 03:48 PM
You keep on talking about a solution, when just 3 weeks ago there was plenty. Yes production was hurt, and yes the free market system does work, but at the expense of people who cannot afford it. There is plenty of oil for the next century or two. What really needs to happen is more refineries need to be built and a better distribution chain established, as well as drilling for oil. Also defending the oil companies just helps them bend us over.
____________
Ted
2000 Green ZX12 sold
The fast color!!
Green 2005 ZX10R
2009 Concours Black ABS
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted September 07, 2005 04:07 PM
Edited By: trenace on 7 Sep 2005 19:10
quote:
You keep on talking about a solution, when just 3 weeks ago there was plenty. Yes production was hurt, and yes the free market system does work, but at the expense of people who cannot afford it. There is plenty of oil for the next century or two. What really needs to happen is more refineries need to be built and a better distribution chain established, as well as drilling for oil. Also defending the oil companies just helps them bend us over.
Ted, I don't want to be repetitive, so I promise this will be my last on this:
According to published reports, which probably are not absolutely accurate but let's assume they are close enough, refining capacity is now down to only 2/3 of what it had been. The refineries were running flat-out before, due to, as you say, none being built for about the last 30 years, which is no fault of anyone but environmentalists and liberals.
So, at the previous price, people wanted to buy some amount of gasoline per unit time because that's how much they were burning by driving. Say they were consuming 300 million gallons per unit time. There is now however only 200 million units capable of being produced per unit time.
We already know that at the previous price, the amount people want is 300 million gallons per that amount of time. So how to spread 200 million gallons among people that, at a lower price anyway, would want 300 million? There are only three solutions:
1) The huge lines, where the gas only goes to those that can wait in line the longest. This is horribly inefficient and wasteful. It's been tried. IT SUCKS. Is this your recommendation?
2) The government dictates how much gasoline each person may buy. Is this your recommendation?
3) Gasoline sells for the price that the free market establishes. People won't choose to buy the gas for that particular driving that they judge not worth the gas cost to them, but only for driving that is worth it to them. Fact is, the amount of gasoline used HAS to drop to 2/3 what it was because that's all there is. Talking about building new refineries is pie in the sky so far as the present situation is concerned. Best for those 2/3 to go to the driving that the drivers themselves find to be most worth the cost.
And, if price goes up 50% per gallon, but people use 2/3 as much -- which this country is going to have to do on average till the refineries come back online -- they are paying no more total.
Your rhetoric about "taking it up the ass," getting "raped" and so forth is just emotionalism and is nothing but biting the hand that feeds you. Actually gasoline is remarkably economical -- the chemical engineering intelligence and investment that has gone into making this possible is pretty astounding.
You try buying 6 lb (which is about one gallon) of most any other bulk chemical for less than $2, which is what gasoline still is under when not counting taxes.
Why don't you complain about the cost of food? About the cost of clothes? About the cost of books? About the cost of computers? Why aren't they "raping" you? (Well, a socialist would say that they all are, but I don't know if you are saying that.)
If oil and gasoline are overpriced in general, then why don't you buy some stock in these companies and get in on the ownership? You can do that in this country.
Actually, the profits are no greater in terms of capital invested than most other industries but if you want to think different, then go invest! Or are you against investment?
I just can't really understand the character of hating the people that work to bring you stuff you need, at a free-market price, buyer and seller entering into voluntary agreement (except for the government forcing large tax to be paid, which you have NOT complained about in these above posts that I noticed.)
Just try envisioning the likelihood of your being able to produce a gallon of gasoline from $2 worth of your time. (Perhaps if you are not a chemist you'll underestimate that; if you are a chemist you'll have a whole new realization if you consider it from that angle.) Exactly why are they supposed to do all this work, to invest all that money, to rebuild the damaged or ruined refineries, if not to earn money from doing so at a competitive rate, earning the profits or suffering the losses -- as also happens -- from freely competing with other oil companies in the marketplace? Or maybe you're just bound and determine to hate the oil companies. If so, then consider their nobility compared to yours, that they work that hard to produce it and still sell it even to those that despise them for it. Truly, your posts on this are reminiscent of Atlas Shrugged!
|
TedG
Moderator
Posts: 8222
|
posted September 07, 2005 04:27 PM
Edited By: TedG on 7 Sep 2005 17:32
Here read this
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9191046/site/newsweek/
Man you must work for an oil company. Dude the oil companys make huge profits at $2 a gallon...huge. That drives up the cost of everything... everything. It also make your hero look bad.
____________
Ted
2000 Green ZX12 sold
The fast color!!
Green 2005 ZX10R
2009 Concours Black ABS
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted September 07, 2005 04:33 PM
Edited By: trenace on 7 Sep 2005 17:44
Good link, thank you!
That is referring only to crude though. There really is not a shortage of crude, except in some cases difficulty of transport. The problem is that crude has to be refined into gasoline.
And the refineries were running flat-out to meet the previous demand, but now can only do 2/3 that, if published values are correct.
No amount of crude oil solves that. It's a bottleneck.
Incidentally, on the long-term issue of oil, actually I'm a subscriber to the Russian theory of the geological, abiotic origin of oil, the evidence being very strong, so actually myself I don't expect it to run out any time remotely soon (neither do the Russians, presently the most successful prospectors for oil in the world.) But that does nothing to help convert oil into gas today.
It will be interesting to see what happens to oil prices as scientists eventually adopt this view, as a large part of price is based on expectation of future value: in other words, if you think something will be worth $100 a year from now and storage costs are near nil, you certainly will not sell it for $80 today. It is largely the expected (but I think wrongly expected) future scarcity of oil that drives the present price as high as it is. However, that is simply the overall result of combined investment decisions, each investor using his best knowledge to try to savvy out what will happen. Unfortunately, one scientific theory rarely replaces a predecessor that has achieved "orthodox" status until the scientists advocating the orthodox theory are dead or at least retired, so we may have some time before the "dino" theory falls into the gutter. And, I think, investors are being duped by that outdated theory. Not that I don't think it's sincerely believed by its adherents, I'm sure it is in virtually all cases. Very hard for most people to get them to change cherished theories, let alone ones they've pinned their careers on, simply from some minor thing like evidence.
|
VincentHill
Needs a life
Posts: 6520
|
posted September 07, 2005 05:21 PM
There is one thing I know for sure. If Clinton had been president, ALL of the people saying how well Bush is handling things and how bad it is to Blame anyone, would be ripping him a new one. I guess it is hard to see anything when people are all lined up with their nose in the Ass of the person in front of them all looking at Saint Dummy!
____________
Made History @ Daytona and still one fast old man!!
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted September 07, 2005 05:40 PM
Edited By: trenace on 7 Sep 2005 18:42
No need to be insulting, Mr Hill, if you are referring to me.
In fact I am a libertarian, not a Republican.
However, when I see attacks being made that don't stand up, regardless of which direction they may be made, I may disagree with them, particularly in situations like this, whether it's people working to sap the will of our country in the War on Terror or to lend comfort or aid to the enemy, or to distract our focus in getting help where it's needed in this present disaster.
No need to be saying that those saying such as I have are sticking their nose up anyone's ass.
Unfortunately I just see that as more of the polarization: of holding an opinion simply because of being opposed to the "other side" rather than on its own merits.
Look at the New Orleans disaster with neutral eyes, and one will see that it is absurd to blame the disaster on the current president, or on the one immediately before him, etc. Not any single person has 1% of the blame for the overall disaster; and so far as the present things that could have been done better such as faster evacuation, the Bush-blamers are pointing their fingers in a completely illogical direction as well -- not on account of having reasoned it out, but just as part of a pattern of attacking Bush for every reason, no matter how divisive that behavior is. It's just ugliness to be putting that out constantly as the news media and many liberals are constantly trying to spin it. Why put so much into negativism and blame-casting particularly when it doesn't even make sense? (Well, it's because it's what they always do, whether out of hate, or strategy, or what-have-you. Anyhow it's tiresome and certainly not productive.)
|
vinniezx12r
Parking Attendant
Posts: 12
|
posted September 07, 2005 05:41 PM
Edited By: vinniezx12r on 7 Sep 2005 18:43
Good posts Trenance... for the most part! I'm still amused that you give the abiotic theory any serious credence...
quote:
Incidentally, on the long-term issue of oil, actually I'm a subscriber to the Russian theory of the geological, abiotic origin of oil, the evidence being very strong, so actually myself I don't expect it to run out any time remotely soon (neither do the Russians, presently the most successful prospectors for oil in the world.) But that does nothing to help convert oil into gas today.
It will be interesting to see what happens to oil prices as scientists eventually adopt this view, as a large part of price is based on expectation of future value: in other words, if you think something will be worth $100 a year from now and storage costs are near nil, you certainly will not sell it for $80 today. It is largely the expected (but I think wrongly expected) future scarcity of oil that drives the present price as high as it is. However, that is simply the overall result of combined investment decisions, each investor using his best knowledge to try to savvy out what will happen. Unfortunately, one scientific theory rarely replaces a predecessor that has achieved "orthodox" status until the scientists advocating the orthodox theory are dead or at least retired, so we may have some time before the "dino" theory falls into the gutter. And, I think, investors are being duped by that outdated theory. Not that I don't think it's sincerely believed by its adherents, I'm sure it is in virtually all cases. Very hard for most people to get them to change cherished theories, let alone ones they've pinned their careers on, simply from some minor thing like evidence.
Seriously, the majority of petroleum engineers and geoscientists don't buy the abiotic story, but then again, maybe they're clueless. At any rate, someone better tell mother earth to kick it in the ass, because her abiogenesis just ain't keepin' up with depletion! I'm not saying that hydrocarbons "Can't" be formed that way, I'm just saying that in most reservoirs they weren't. And... that abiotic processes will never generate enough oil and gas to satisfy demand growth. But then again, that's just my outdated theory.
TedG, every dog has it's day. Where were you for the last 25 years when the oil companies were dogging it up? Why aren't you bitching about the home builders? Aren't they gouging the hell out of the public? Think the oil companies have kicked ass over the last five years compared to the home builders?
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=XOM&t=5y&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=kbh
Look, nothing is as easy as it sounds. The oil companies have tried desperately to increase local production and refining capacity. Oh, and take a look at the TOTAL costs of taxes in the price of a gallon of gas - much more than just the advertised "gas taxes". For instance, typically 12.5% (and in some cases up to 20%) of oil produced at the wellhead goes directly to paying a production tax. This does not include the income taxes, advalorem taxes, royalties, and transportation taxes that the oil companies must pay. All I'm trying to say is don't be so quick to play the blame / gouge game, because it's not as simple as it seems. If the oil companies really could gouge at will, we wouldn't have seen the whole industry in a slump since about 1984. BTW, I do work in the oil business, and have been working 60+ hour weeks non stop for the past two years. My take home pay is pretty decent right now, but over the past 20 years it has been substandard for the number of hours I have put in.
One more thought, I hear your pain on high gas prices. We are trying to develop new reserves here in the US, but are fighting the environmentalists tooth and nail every day. They've got the US gov. totally non-functional due to their continuing lawsuits! They can shut down anything for several years just by filing a lawsuit.
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted September 07, 2005 05:43 PM
Edited By: trenace on 7 Sep 2005 18:48
Vinnie, did you read the references I provided on it earlier? Particularly the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences paper?
It is mis-stating my position grossly to say that I am saying, or the abiotic theory requires, that petroleum engineers are "clueless." Being in an error in a given thing does not make one without clue entirely. In fact it is possible to have vast amounts of useful knowledge while being in error in a fundamental point -- that has been an entirely common situation throughout the history of science and engineering. Knowledge advances, and the attitude "Anything different must mean you're saying all the experts are clueless; since they obviously are not clueless, therefore the new different theory cannot be right" is precisely the reason that it usually takes at least an entire generation since the time of evidence becoming sufficient before new theories overthrowing the old become generally accepted.
|
vinniezx12r
Parking Attendant
Posts: 12
|
posted September 07, 2005 05:53 PM
It's been a long - long time, but I glanced through them. I'm no chemist, but I do know that hydrocarbons can be formed by fairly simple process from organic material (eg - ethanol), and I also know that the industry is currently exploiting new reservoirs offsetting actively generating organic rich shales. The one place the abiotic theory falls short... the path of the crude from the center of the earth to the reservoirs - and just how the crude makes its way past impermeable shale barriers to the reservoir rock. Oh, and another thing, why isn't there oil in permeable sandstones and carbonates in areas where there is no sign of organic rich source shales?
I have read through some of the original papers which were based upon the findings of methane in granite, where no source shales are present. But haven't seen anything about finding oils in this type of environment.
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted September 07, 2005 05:59 PM
Edited By: trenace on 7 Sep 2005 19:02
Well, we are approaching it from the opposite perspective: I am a chemist but with very little knowledge of geology. I am in the position of having only to trust the statements of the Russians that oil is indeed found where one would expect it, and it is able to flow there, from their theory. Their oil production would seem to back it up. I am myself not able to follow the geological arguments. The chemical evidence is very, very impressive however.
In contrast, you have expertise in the geological aspects but are taking on trust the statements of those holding the opposing theory regarding the chemistry.
As to your question:
quote:
Oh, and another thing, why isn't there oil in permeable sandstones and carbonates in areas where there is no sign of organic rich source shales?
that would seem a good question but appears to have an assumption that it's fact that that never is so. But I had thought that this was precisely one of the Russians' arguments: that they look for and find exactly such oil all the time.
|
vinniezx12r
Parking Attendant
Posts: 12
|
posted September 07, 2005 06:15 PM
Well, I won't drag this on too much longer (you've got too much fight in ya for me to win  ). But I will say this much...
I worked for a company that was invited to the former USSR back in the late 80's, just when they were opening their doors to outside companies. The things we saw were unbelieveable! They had NO idea where there oil was coming from in the wells they drilled. Their depth control for their perforating guns was non -existent. They perforated wells that should have produced (shot the wrong zones), but didn't, and a lot of the time they hit purely by accident. There understanding of reservoir development was totally faulty, because the data they were using was totally faulty. They had no idea what their production actually was because they lost so much through pipeline leaks. I'm fully convinced that they are still going through their fields and finding missed opportunities (that never would have been missed in the US). Also, if the Russians really do have a leg up on the western oil companies (in their thought processes about exploration), then why are they relying on western companies and western technology to develop their reserves? Their oil production absolutely DOES NOT back up their theory. In fact if it hadn't been for the Chevron's, Exxons, Shells, etc. showing them what they were missing, their oil production would be flat on it's ass.
Depletion - every reservoir I've ever seen (that's in the thousands - all over the world) depletes in a totally rational manner that is consistent with calculated reservoir volumes and reservoir drive mechanisms. I've yet to see one reservoir that refills itself.
|
Tainui
Parking Attendant
Posts: 9
|
posted September 07, 2005 06:22 PM
I heard a number of 33 Billion in Profit by oil ccompanies per quarter on Fox the other night. If I mis heard that figure and its not profit then forgive my digression.
But a good faith "donation" from the oil companies for the next 2 quaters of say 10% of their profit could go a long way to getting 30% of US production back online and the city of NO on the right track.
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted September 07, 2005 06:23 PM
Edited By: trenace on 7 Sep 2005 19:36
So you're saying they don't have a single producing well where it makes no sense that vast amounts of living material got underground there? (Important not to confuse the word "organic" with "having ever been living," and the "vast amounts" part is also important, because especially if given the presence of hydrocarbons and water, you're likely to have a lot of archaebacteria, so you will have traces of life being found. So the requirement really is, are there truly no spots where it makes no sense that gigatons of living matter were subducted?)
Some of their scientists certainly say otherwise.
I would just conclude with the fact that having seen bad practice in some or even many instances, does not mean wrong theory.
It's way, way, way too much coincidence for me that iron oxide, marble, and water not only readily react -- all by themselves, nothing further needed but heat and pressure -- to produce not only hydrocarbons, but in the exact same ratios of isomers and species as is found; while the biotic theory basically requires "Oh, trust us, a miracle happens if you wait long enough."
Kind of reminds me of the cartoon of a physicist at a chalkboard with a maze of dense equations on the left and on the right, and in the middle he's scrawled, "Then a miracle happens."
Given the two choices, I favor the first.
|
vinniezx12r
Parking Attendant
Posts: 12
|
posted September 07, 2005 06:29 PM
quote:
I heard a number of 33 Billion in Profit by oil ccompanies per quarter on Fox the other night. If I mis heard that figure and its not profit then forgive my digression.
But a good faith "donation" from the oil companies for the next 2 quaters of say 10% of their profit could go a long way to getting 30% of US production back online and the city of NO on the right track.
Agreed. Hopefully they'll be extremely generous.
I did hear that the refineries in the south had frozen gasoline prices to pre-hurricane levels, and that most of the increases came from the retail side. I don't have a source to back this up though.
|
vinniezx12r
Parking Attendant
Posts: 12
|
posted September 07, 2005 06:42 PM
I'm saying that I've NEVER seen an instance of oil production coming from an area where there is not a known organic rich source shale nearby. I don't have enough background in deep natural gas exploration to comment there.
quote:
t's way, way, way too much coincidence for me that iron oxide, marble, and water not only readily react -- all by themselves, nothing further needed but heat -- to produce not only hydrocarbons, but in the exact same ratios of isomers and species as is found; while the biotic theory basically requires "Oh, trust us, a miracle happens if you wait long enough under heat and pressure."
Kind of reminds me of the cartoon of a physicist at a chalkboard with a maze of dense equations on the left and on the right, and in the middle he's scrawled, "Then a miracle happens."
Given the two choices, I favor the first.
Ok, this is where you go me... Why is it so hard to believe a hydrocarbon can be generated from standard organic matter? It's all around you - coal??
What about alcohols? Are they products of iron oxide, marble, and water? Does it take a "miracle" to generate ethanol from living plant material? What about synthetic diesel that's made from organic wastes? Or methane that generates at trash dumps? Miracles?
Can you provide a link where someone actually produced hydrocarbons from iron oxide, marble, and water? I guess we've got different definitions of miracles here.
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted September 07, 2005 06:49 PM
Edited By: trenace on 7 Sep 2005 20:00
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/99/17/10976.pdf
No one has ever, ever, ever done anything like this in terms of being able to replicate oil-reservoir hydrocarbons starting from once-living material. Not even close.
Producing ethanol from for example sugar is quite different. I can draw you the exact reaction mechanism.
As for coal, again, that is not requiring forming all these carbon-carbon bonds that there is absolutely nothing to drive their formation. Coal is simple enough: very well understood reaction to get carbon (which is all coal is, not counting impurities) out of say wood.
However,producing say isooctane given nothing but sugar or starch or ethanol or algae, whatever, plus rocks, water, heat, and pressure requires hand-waving and so far as I can tell, considerable credulity. I have never seen a claimed reaction mechanism let alone a demonstration that it can occur under given conditions similar to what may exist within the earth.
But as for their being produced, and in the exact ratios in fact seen, from iron oxide, marble, and water, that is indeed demonstrated.
By "miracle," in this context, I mean a claimed chemical reaction that you cannot show, chemically, step-by-step how it happens and makes sense; and particularly claimed reactions that not only lack a plausible or any claimed mechanism but are in the reverse of what makes sense thermodynamically.
|
slug
Pro
Out in search of my mind...
Posts: 1433
|
posted September 07, 2005 06:53 PM
from louisiana state budget FY2004
Westbank Hurricane Protection Project,
Planning, Construction, Right of Way and
Utilities ($199,000,000 Federal Match and
$52,800,000 Local Match)
Jefferson, Orleans,
Plaquemines
(Priority 1)4,000,000 (P2)0 (P3)12,500,000 (P4)12,500,000 (P5)7,000,000 (Total)36,000,000
of the 200 million federal match, they used 36million
07-274 DOTD - PUB
IMPROV
Morganza to Gulf of Mexico Flood Control
Feasibility Study, Planning, Design, Right
of Way and Construction of Levees,
Floodgates and Other Flood Control
Systems ($100,000,000 Local Match;
$25,000,000 Local In-Kind Match;
$442,000,000 Federal Match)
Ascension,
Assumption, Iberia,
Iberville,
Lafourche, Pointe
Coupee, St. Martin,
St. Mary,
Terrebonne, West
Baton Rouge
(P1)2,605,000 (P2)1,395,000 (P3)20,170,000 (P4)78,000,000 (P5)11,225,000 (Total)113,395,000
114 million of the 442 million allocated used....
etc etc.
http://www.state.la.us/OPB/pub/FY04/State_Budget_Document_04.pdf
federal government does more matching than they do outright financing. this keeps the states in control of their own projects. unfortunately sometimes this results in less than desired results.
yes, in 2004 federal government offered 442 million instead of 500 million. fat lot of good it did them....
of course this is about 10 hours old for vincent's post.
i don't disagree that funding was too low to repair what was there, but again i challenge anyone to pointout WHY anyone would expect a system designed for x pressure to withstand a higher pressure applied to it.
i don't disagree that many COULD have been done to prevent many things, but then you get from the ideals of a world full of risk and real people running things and attempt to apply an ideal mindset.
does it need rebuilt? yes. did it need rbuilt? yes
did it need rebuilt to old standards? not only no...
they NEED to build an entire new levee with ability to withstand a cat6 storm (i know, no suchthing. but overengineer it now and don't fret later)
WILL the state decide to spend the money there? hopefully. we don't need a repeat of this.
but this is for the local and state voters to take up with their respective legislators. I bet there won't be a dearth of federal funds inthe future on this.
(and anyone that has been part of the government KNOWS that there is usually a way to get 'emergency' funding for something that is needed and screamed for loud enough. so eventhough only 65million dollars were earmarked for SELA or whatnot, does not mean that they wouldn't be able to get more money if truly needed)
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted September 07, 2005 07:12 PM
Edited By: trenace on 7 Sep 2005 20:14
The other problem is, no matter how good the levees are, if a similar storm goes straight FOR New Orleans instead of off to the side, the levees then do nothing about the fact that New Orleans varies from below sea level to only fractonally and getting a billion tons of water dumped on it.
In fact, one of the fears for New Orleans before was of the levees holding water IN should such a hurricane strike.
The sad fact is that, short of some trillion dollar or more spending that would let the city and entire area deal fine with 20 foot deep water should it strike, New Orleans may fundamentally be insecure from the most severe storms. I hope that this is not the case; certainly it is something that a lot of thought is going to be put into now.
|
TedG
Moderator
Posts: 8222
|
posted September 07, 2005 07:50 PM
trenace,
I understand completely about the shortage of refineries. But that is a poor excuse to raise prices by 1/3 and just take the profits. I am all in favor of building more refineries. If they were to take that extra money and use it to expand capacities, I would not say a word.
vinnie, I have been bitching about the oil companies for the last 25 years and yes I have been hit pretty hard by the expense of housing. Who hasn't. But the reason I am saying something now is because the oil prices jumping almost 70 cents in one day is directly related to the hurricane.
I am a registered republican, but I will only vote for the best man. I admit I liked Clinton and voted for him. That dude was dead smart and liked blow jobs, qualities to be admired. Bush is another story, the guy still hasn't bought into evolution or global warming. I wouldn't be surprised if he still thought the world was flat. Let's face it all politicians are scum bags. So just because I don't like Bush doesn't mean I am liberal or a Democrat.
____________
Ted
2000 Green ZX12 sold
The fast color!!
Green 2005 ZX10R
2009 Concours Black ABS
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted September 07, 2005 07:58 PM
Ted, you still have not explained how, if prices do not rise, the result will not be anything but either extremely long lines or rationing. Those are however the only two remaining possibilities when demand (at a given price) exceeds supply (at that price) and stock becomes exhausted.
I hope that our leaders are not also economically that unaware, or as is more likely, aware but choosing to succumb to popular pressure from those not aware, thus resulting in massive shortages. Far better to have individuals decide what driving isn't worth doing at the price, than having the price low but only 2/3 as much available as people want at that price.
|
|
|
|
|
HOME
NEW TOPIC