No, no: Maker as in, "Bless the Maker and his water, bless the coming and going of Him. May his passage cleanse the world. May he keep the world for his people."David_Jay wrote:Maker? there's a Maker? A first cause???
I'm going to take that up with my C3PO unit.classicpenny wrote:No, no: Maker as in, "Bless the Maker and his water, bless the coming and going of Him. May his passage cleanse the world. May he keep the world for his people." :)David_Jay wrote:Maker? there's a Maker? A first cause???
That made me confused.BSPhysics wrote:An article highlighting the political hurdles to drilling and production, specifically ANWR but others, also.
,compared to 32 billion nationwide
I have no idea what this refers to. THe TAP, has been added onto over the yrs, I know that Badami is connected to the TAP, and Badami is about 25 to 30 miles from the ANWR border.
75-mile pipeline spur needs be built to connect to the main Alyeska Pipeline from Prudhoe Bay to the Southern shipping port.
Utter BS. 30 wells can be managed in a 400 ft by 500 ft area.and the oil drilling could be done from a concentrated small area, about the size of Dulles Airport.
Forgot about the Moutain range, eh ?ANWR was typically portrayed as if it was like the Rockies, with happy goats jumping around. But the land is actually flat and desolate for most of the year,
MAY ? I know the USGS has many documents as to the potential. Seemingly missing are the links to these documents, I would hope the author wasnt trying to downplay ANPR and emphasizing ANWR ? NAh that wouldnt be going on.....The Alaska National Petroleum Reserve.... may also have large new oil reserves,
Right, factual errors.Jon Basil Utley is associate publisher of The American Conservative and a former foreign correspondent for Knight Ridder newspapers. He has decades of experience in the oil business, including as the owner and operator of a small oil drilling partnership.
Editor's Note: Due to editing errors, the original version of this story misidentified the location of Prudhoe Bay and misstated the average depth of oils wells in Prudhoe Bay and ANWR. Additionally, it mistakenly claimed that the federal government prohibits all offshore drilling; in fact, the government effectively prohibits offshore drilling in any new areas.
Wow. You actually *drank* the coolaid.zenakuten wrote:http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcour ... a-peak-oil
If you watch or read chapters 17-end, I think this gives a decent explanation of peak oil and how it relates to the economy, and how energy use in general relates to the environment.
I'll try and give an analogy although I'm not sure how good of an analogy it will be.
Imagine all of the world's economy in aggregate as a single, extremely large backhoe, digging at the earth, knocking down forest as it goes, gathering fish, etc.
Oil is currently what fuels the backhoe. Before it was coal, and before that wood. The machine is much more powerful running oil than it was running wood or coal. As a result, we all live much better off due to the energy we get from oil. But as a consequence, we consume the environment faster than before.
What happens when the machine becomes nuclear powered? How quickly will that backhoe devour the earth? We will have nearly limitless energy, but a finite bubble to use it in. We will just destroy it faster if we are not careful.
Private forests are sustaining themselves. Public ones do not.That's not what history shows, however. Human nature is to use the most readily available resources first, which means chopping down all the available forest before putting the effort into planting a new one.
http://www.kiplinger.com/businessresour ... 90806.html
Something fun to throw in.
zenakuten,zenakuten wrote: I'm all for fusion. I'm just trying to play devil's advocate here And your right about the energy use. The energy could just as easily be productive rather than destructive to the environment (as in your e.g. nuclear powered tree planter).
That's not what history shows, however. Human nature is to use the most readily available resources first, which means chopping down all the available forest before putting the effort into planting a new one. That's what happened in the US. It was almost entirely forested. Now all that remains are a few federal and native american reserves. All new paper and wood products comes from tree farms, but we didn't start farming until after the forests were gone. This situation may change with fusion. The effort to plant a new forest with fusion power may be trivial compared to the effort of chopping an existing one down.
Another thing to consider is that as standards of living go up, the number of children a couple has generally goes down. Free energy for all may be what stops the out of control population growth, which I admit is the real resource issue, not energy.