On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 11:09:47 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 7:39:50 AM UTC+2, Ricky wrote:
> > On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 10:26:08 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
> > >
> > > Gas price was still cheap in 2019, around $3. It's $8 today and unlikely to fall back again. So, less of the stuff should be burning up.
> > Of course the price of gas won't stay at $8 a gallon. If nothing else, over the next few years, the amount consumed will drop 10% because of BEVs and that will continue to make permanent decreases in the price of oil and gasoline.
> >
> There is an enviromental argument for taxing it more heavily, so less of it gets burnt. As more renewable energy becomes availalble, taxing fossil carbon will put less of crimp on the economy as a whole, so it probably will happen, but the fossil carbon extraction industry won't like it.

Not sure if it really make sense to ship LNG to Europe. We (US) got more than enough and Europe need more of it. For $8 NG, it costs around $3 to liquidify, $6 to ship and $2 to gasify. It makes zero economical sense, but only political sense.

On 06/06/2022 11:07 AM, Ed Lee wrote:
> On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 11:09:47 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>> On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 7:39:50 AM UTC+2, Ricky wrote:
>>> On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 10:26:08 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Gas price was still cheap in 2019, around $3. It's $8 today and unlikely to fall back again. So, less of the stuff should be burning up.
>>> Of course the price of gas won't stay at $8 a gallon. If nothing else, over the next few years, the amount consumed will drop 10% because of BEVs and that will continue to make permanent decreases in the price of oil and gasoline.
>>>
>> There is an enviromental argument for taxing it more heavily, so less of it gets burnt. As more renewable energy becomes availalble, taxing fossil carbon will put less of crimp on the economy as a whole, so it probably will happen, but the fossil carbon extraction industry won't like it.
>
> Not sure if it really make sense to ship LNG to Europe. We (US) got more than enough and Europe need more of it. For $8 NG, it costs around $3 to liquidify, $6 to ship and $2 to gasify. It makes zero economical sense, but only political sense.
>

It's not an overnight solution either. The last I knew Germany was light
on LNG terminals that could easily be wired into the existing pipelines
for distribution. I see it as the US trying to sweet talk them into
something that really isn't to their advantage. The Ukraine fiasco is a
good excuse for dropping the pipeline that would be the obvious answer.

On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 10:07:23 -0700 (PDT), Ed Lee
<edward.ming.lee@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 11:09:47 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>> On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 7:39:50 AM UTC+2, Ricky wrote:
>> > On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 10:26:08 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Gas price was still cheap in 2019, around $3. It's $8 today and unlikely to fall back again. So, less of the stuff should be burning up.
>> > Of course the price of gas won't stay at $8 a gallon. If nothing else, over the next few years, the amount consumed will drop 10% because of BEVs and that will continue to make permanent decreases in the price of oil and gasoline.
>> >
>> There is an enviromental argument for taxing it more heavily, so less of it gets burnt. As more renewable energy becomes availalble, taxing fossil carbon will put less of crimp on the economy as a whole, so it probably will happen, but the fossil carbon extraction industry won't like it.
>
>Not sure if it really make sense to ship LNG to Europe. We (US) got more than enough and Europe need more of it. For $8 NG, it costs around $3 to liquidify, $6 to ship and $2 to gasify. It makes zero economical sense, but only political sense.

Unless people are freezing. Winter is coming.

--

If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties.
Francis Bacon

On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 19:00:57 +0100, whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 4:13:44 AM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> On Sat, 04 Jun 2022 20:35:15 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 5:05:01 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
>> >> On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 11:04:42 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Oil and gas are great. Once you drill a well, the stuff just comes up
>> >> > and flows into a pipeline. No dust, no miners, no crushers, no
>> >> > chemicals, ...
>> >>
>> >> Huh? One hundred percent chemical product, guy! Byproducts
>> >> galore, so much pollution the weather is taking notice!
>> >
>> > Sometimes I just have to laugh. I don't know if the idiot is just an idiot, or if he posts such clearly silly things, just to get a response, which is not at all unlike him, by his own admission. But even funnier is that we all keep playing along, giving him the attention he craves.
>> >
>> > He reminds me of a guy who ...would respond to everything anyone said, including countless arguments. The guy became rather famous and any time he entered a new group, he very quickly was spotted and pointed out.
>> >
>> > Larkin is a bit more highly functioning, but ...
>
>> He has the intelligence to think instead of follow propaganda about "climate change". It's as stupid as believing in god.
>
> Intelligence, absent observation and discipline, is useless.

Have you used the word "absent" where everyone else would have said "without"? or does "absent observation" mean something?

> In the current instance, he considered
> the input end of a chemical delivery pipeline, and announced 'no chemicals'.
> That's just willful blindness, not thinking. It seems he IS following propoganda,
> rather than looking for evidence or logic or testimony of any sort.

No, there just aren't that many chemicals used compared to say Lithium mining.

> Thinking would have easily encompassed the pipeline's other end, disgorging petrochemicals.

They get burnt.

On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 19:08:05 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 2:01:02 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
>> On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 4:13:44 AM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> > On Sat, 04 Jun 2022 20:35:15 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 5:05:01 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
>> > >> On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 11:04:42 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> > Oil and gas are great. Once you drill a well, the stuff just comes up
>> > >> > and flows into a pipeline. No dust, no miners, no crushers, no
>> > >> > chemicals, ...
>> > >>
>> > >> Huh? One hundred percent chemical product, guy! Byproducts
>> > >> galore, so much pollution the weather is taking notice!
>> > >
>> > > Sometimes I just have to laugh. I don't know if the idiot is just an idiot, or if he posts such clearly silly things, just to get a response, which is not at all unlike him, by his own admission. But even funnier is that we all keep playing along, giving him the attention he craves.
>> > >
>> > > He reminds me of a guy who ...would respond to everything anyone said, including countless arguments. The guy became rather famous and any time he entered a new group, he very quickly was spotted and pointed out.
>> > >
>> > > Larkin is a bit more highly functioning, but ...
>> > He has the intelligence to think instead of follow propaganda about "climate change". It's as stupid as believing in god.
>> Intelligence, absent observation and discipline, is useless. In the current instance, he considered
>> the input end of a chemical delivery pipeline, and announced 'no chemicals'.
>> That's just willful blindness, not thinking. It seems he IS following propoganda,
>> rather than looking for evidence or logic or testimony of any sort.
>>
>> Thinking would have easily encompassed the pipeline's other end, disgorging petrochemicals.
>
> Not if it is also a worm hole into another galaxy. Well, a galaxy we don't care about.

Just be careful now. Watch some episodes of Stargate where they try to draw energy from another universe.

On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 21:21:53 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

> On 06/05/2022 08:41 AM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 11:02:21 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
>> <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 04 Jun 2022 15:54:14 +0100, <jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 04 Jun 2022 08:00:34 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
>>>> <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 04 Jun 2022 05:06:15 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 06/03/2022 12:04 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 2 Jun 2022 22:06:25 -0600, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 06/02/2022 02:18 PM, ke...@kjwdesigns.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 31 May 2022 at 21:55:55 UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You said "minors" meaning young people, nothing about mining.
>>>>>>>>>> OCD fuckwit. I actually spelt it like that for a laugh, making fun of our fucked up language. Anyway minors are more fun than miners.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Unusual sense of humour.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How are we supposed to know what you mean?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It could mean either in the context of the conversation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And most Lithium is "mined" using brine extraction, it does not involve digging holes.
>>>>>>>>>> https://champ4mt.com/the-dangers-of-lithium-mining-and-how-to-do-something-about-it.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> kw
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then there are the minor miners:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://allthatsinteresting.com/child-miners#27
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oil and gas are great. Once you drill a well, the stuff just comes up
>>>>>>> and flows into a pipeline. No dust, no miners, no crushers, no
>>>>>>> chemicals, no trucks, no tailings. Nobody even needs to be there.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fracking needs a little more attention, but the action is still deep
>>>>>>> underground.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I always get a kick out of those grasshoppers out in the middle of
>>>>>> nowhere doing there thing. I get even a bigger kick out of the ones you
>>>>>> stumble over in the middle of Anaheim. iirc there were a couple off
>>>>>> State College north of Ball.
>>>>>
>>>>> I take it you mean a https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcykqOwDvyc and not a https://youtu.be/NfJQx8ZEr54?t=50 or a https://youtu.be/yMFqyabMJTo
>>>>
>>>> The greenies would eliminate one and have us eat the other.
>>>
>>> But aren't greenies all vegetarians?
>>
>> A lot of people pretend to be vegetarians. For a while.
>
> I've went vegetarian a few times. No philosophical or health reason,
> just boredom I guess. The last time around it was actually pescatarian
> until I got tired of tilapia.

I've been vegetarian all my life because I hate the smell of meat, I cannot distinguish it from rotting flesh or sewage. I don't give a shit about dumb animals like cows. And we should eat cats and dogs, they're thick as fuck too.

On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 22:43:48 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 4:22:01 PM UTC-4, rbowman wrote:
>> On 06/05/2022 08:41 AM, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> > On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 11:02:21 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
>> > <C...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sat, 04 Jun 2022 15:54:14 +0100, <jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On Sat, 04 Jun 2022 08:00:34 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
>> >>> <C...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> On Sat, 04 Jun 2022 05:06:15 +0100, rbowman <bow...@montana.com> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> On 06/03/2022 12:04 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>> >>>>>> On Thu, 2 Jun 2022 22:06:25 -0600, rbowman <bow...@montana.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> On 06/02/2022 02:18 PM, ke...@kjwdesigns.com wrote:
>> >>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 31 May 2022 at 21:55:55 UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> You said "minors" meaning young people, nothing about mining.
>> >>>>>>>>> OCD fuckwit. I actually spelt it like that for a laugh, making fun of our fucked up language. Anyway minors are more fun than miners.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Unusual sense of humour.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> How are we supposed to know what you mean?
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> It could mean either in the context of the conversation.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> And most Lithium is "mined" using brine extraction, it does not involve digging holes.
>> >>>>>>>>> https://champ4mt.com/the-dangers-of-lithium-mining-and-how-to-do-something-about-it.html
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> kw
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Then there are the minor miners:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> https://allthatsinteresting.com/child-miners#27
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Oil and gas are great. Once you drill a well, the stuff just comes up
>> >>>>>> and flows into a pipeline. No dust, no miners, no crushers, no
>> >>>>>> chemicals, no trucks, no tailings. Nobody even needs to be there.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Fracking needs a little more attention, but the action is still deep
>> >>>>>> underground.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I always get a kick out of those grasshoppers out in the middle of
>> >>>>> nowhere doing there thing. I get even a bigger kick out of the ones you
>> >>>>> stumble over in the middle of Anaheim. iirc there were a couple off
>> >>>>> State College north of Ball.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I take it you mean a https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcykqOwDvyc and not a https://youtu.be/NfJQx8ZEr54?t=50 or a https://youtu.be/yMFqyabMJTo
>> >>>
>> >>> The greenies would eliminate one and have us eat the other.
>> >>
>> >> But aren't greenies all vegetarians?
>> >
>> > A lot of people pretend to be vegetarians. For a while.
>> I've went vegetarian a few times. No philosophical or health reason,
>> just boredom I guess. The last time around it was actually pescatarian
>> until I got tired of tilapia.
>
> Being vegetarian or pescatarian (or Presbyterian) when few others are, makes it boring unless you do a lot of cooking. The two exceptions are Indian and Thai food. They often have lots of vegetarian options as a part of the cuisine, rather than a concession to those who choose not to eat meat.
>
> I used to like Panera's a lot until the boredom of choosing from such a limited menu got to me.
>
> Living in Puerto Rico as a pescatarian is tough. They literally don't understand "no meat" in any language, including Spanish. It's just not a phrase they often hear. Dos huevos fritos, con tostada, sin bacon means, "I want two fried eggs with toast and ham". Or "sin jamon" means, "Bacon, please". I've had breakfast maybe 100 times now in Puerto Rico and can count on one hand the number of times they seem to understand what "no carne" means.
>
> People elsewhere in the US at least understand that some people don't wish to eat meat. I go to Thanksgiving dinner at friends' homes and there is no shortage of veggies. I never go hungry. But in a restaurant, it's much harder to order a meal where the "center of the plate" isn't a slice of some dead animal, usually with hooves. Well, not on the plate.

The restaurant is a business. It costs more to have more options on the menu. If the number of vegetarians is high enough, they will make more money providing for them, otherwise, why should they waste money on you? In the UK, there seems to be a big deal about other stuff, like people allergic to wheat. Restaurants with options like that advertise they provide for them, presumably to get extra custom.

On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 15:39:02 +0100, <jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 11:03:17 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
> <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 04 Jun 2022 15:51:52 +0100, <jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 16:07:54 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 2:11:48 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 14:04:57 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> >On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 11:04:42 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> Oil and gas are great. Once you drill a well, the stuff just comes up
>>>>> >> and flows into a pipeline. No dust, no miners, no crushers, no
>>>>> >> chemicals, ...
>>>>
>>>>> >Huh? One hundred percent chemical product, guy! Byproducts
>>>>> >galore, so much pollution the weather is taking notice!
>>>>
>>>>> Go live in a tent. Forage for food. Burn rushes for light. Wear fur
>>>>> when it's cold. Cook over dung. Walk everywhere. Enjoy.
>>>>
>>>> JL is so shortsighted, he only sees the input end of 'a pipeline',
>>>> and ignores the other one. As long as he's on this planet, the
>>>> other end IS his concern, just one he's neglected for decades.
>>>
>>> I'm in a warm house, in front of a computer drinking hot Peets coffee.
>>> All that thanks to fossil fuel. I don't ignore this stuff; I
>>> appreciate it all the time, as I have for decades.
>>>
>>> Fossil fuels are lifting the world out of miserable poverty. Net Zero,
>>> if that crazy idea ever could happen, would kill billions and set the
>>> world back centuries.
>>>
>>> But be as afraid as you want to be. Some people live in fear by
>>> nature. There are hilarious youtubes of neurotic terrified young
>>> airheads who have despaired on life because AGW will destroy all human
>>> life soon.
>>>
>>> Some things that have revolutionized agricultural yield are
>>> ammonia-based fertilizers, farm machinery, pumped watering, transport,
>>> and more CO2. All from fossil fuels.
>>>
>>> Well, the CO2 increase was probably mostly natural.
>>
>> We wouldn't die off because of lack of heating and cars. We would just live a less fun life.
>
> There are still a few billion people for whom fun isn't an option.

My point exactly, they do just fine.

"Commander Kinsey" <CK1@nospam.com> wrote in
news:op.1nehcaxwmvhs6z@ryzen.lan:

>> Intelligence, absent observation and discipline, is useless.
>
> Have you used the word "absent" where everyone else would have
> said "without"? or does "absent observation" mean something?
>

No, idiot... NOT "everyone else". You are a grammatical know
nothing. You are a composition know nothing. You are a statistical
know nothing, just like everything else you spew horseshit about.

Absent a much deserved baseball bat upside your head, you get to
breathe another day. Bloody stupid jackass that you are.

"Commander Kinsey" <CK1@nospam.com> wrote in
news:op.1nehfcb5mvhs6z@ryzen.lan:

> On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 21:21:53 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 06/05/2022 08:41 AM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>> On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 11:02:21 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
>>> <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 04 Jun 2022 15:54:14 +0100,
>>>> <jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 04 Jun 2022 08:00:34 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
>>>>> <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 04 Jun 2022 05:06:15 +0100, rbowman
>>>>>> <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 06/03/2022 12:04 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2 Jun 2022 22:06:25 -0600, rbowman
>>>>>>>> <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 06/02/2022 02:18 PM, ke...@kjwdesigns.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 31 May 2022 at 21:55:55 UTC-7, Commander
>>>>>>>>>> Kinsey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You said "minors" meaning young people, nothing about
>>>>>>>>>>>> mining.
>>>>>>>>>>> OCD fuckwit. I actually spelt it like that for a laugh,
>>>>>>>>>>> making fun of our fucked up language. Anyway minors are
>>>>>>>>>>> more fun than miners.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Unusual sense of humour.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How are we supposed to know what you mean?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It could mean either in the context of the conversation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And most Lithium is "mined" using brine extraction, it
>>>>>>>>>>>> does not involve digging holes.
>>>>>>>>>>> https://champ4mt.com/the-dangers-of-lithium-mining-and-ho
>>>>>>>>>>> w-to-do-something-about-it.html
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> kw
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Then there are the minor miners:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://allthatsinteresting.com/child-miners#27
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oil and gas are great. Once you drill a well, the stuff
>>>>>>>> just comes up and flows into a pipeline. No dust, no
>>>>>>>> miners, no crushers, no chemicals, no trucks, no tailings.
>>>>>>>> Nobody even needs to be there.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Fracking needs a little more attention, but the action is
>>>>>>>> still deep underground.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I always get a kick out of those grasshoppers out in the
>>>>>>> middle of nowhere doing there thing. I get even a bigger
>>>>>>> kick out of the ones you stumble over in the middle of
>>>>>>> Anaheim. iirc there were a couple off State College north of
>>>>>>> Ball.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I take it you mean a
>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcykqOwDvyc and not a
>>>>>> https://youtu.be/NfJQx8ZEr54?t=50 or a
>>>>>> https://youtu.be/yMFqyabMJTo
>>>>>
>>>>> The greenies would eliminate one and have us eat the other.
>>>>
>>>> But aren't greenies all vegetarians?
>>>
>>> A lot of people pretend to be vegetarians. For a while.
>>
>> I've went vegetarian a few times. No philosophical or health
>> reason, just boredom I guess. The last time around it was
>> actually pescatarian until I got tired of tilapia.
>
> I've been vegetarian all my life because I hate the smell of meat,
> I cannot distinguish it from rotting flesh or sewage. I don't
> give a shit about dumb animals like cows. And we should eat cats
> and dogs, they're thick as fuck too.
>

Whereas retarded uncaring jackoffs like you should simply be made
into worm food. Because retarded uncaring jackoffs like you are
thick as fuck too, and the intelligent among us should simply wipe
you all right the fuck out so there is more left for us. In other
words, we should treat you like you so deserve to be treated.

On Tue, 07 Jun 2022 17:02:55 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
<CK1@nospam.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 15:39:02 +0100, <jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 11:03:17 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
>> <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 04 Jun 2022 15:51:52 +0100, <jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 16:07:54 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 2:11:48 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 14:04:57 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> >On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 11:04:42 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >> Oil and gas are great. Once you drill a well, the stuff just comes up
>>>>>> >> and flows into a pipeline. No dust, no miners, no crushers, no
>>>>>> >> chemicals, ...
>>>>>
>>>>>> >Huh? One hundred percent chemical product, guy! Byproducts
>>>>>> >galore, so much pollution the weather is taking notice!
>>>>>
>>>>>> Go live in a tent. Forage for food. Burn rushes for light. Wear fur
>>>>>> when it's cold. Cook over dung. Walk everywhere. Enjoy.
>>>>>
>>>>> JL is so shortsighted, he only sees the input end of 'a pipeline',
>>>>> and ignores the other one. As long as he's on this planet, the
>>>>> other end IS his concern, just one he's neglected for decades.
>>>>
>>>> I'm in a warm house, in front of a computer drinking hot Peets coffee.
>>>> All that thanks to fossil fuel. I don't ignore this stuff; I
>>>> appreciate it all the time, as I have for decades.
>>>>
>>>> Fossil fuels are lifting the world out of miserable poverty. Net Zero,
>>>> if that crazy idea ever could happen, would kill billions and set the
>>>> world back centuries.
>>>>
>>>> But be as afraid as you want to be. Some people live in fear by
>>>> nature. There are hilarious youtubes of neurotic terrified young
>>>> airheads who have despaired on life because AGW will destroy all human
>>>> life soon.
>>>>
>>>> Some things that have revolutionized agricultural yield are
>>>> ammonia-based fertilizers, farm machinery, pumped watering, transport,
>>>> and more CO2. All from fossil fuels.
>>>>
>>>> Well, the CO2 increase was probably mostly natural.
>>>
>>> We wouldn't die off because of lack of heating and cars. We would just live a less fun life.
>>
>> There are still a few billion people for whom fun isn't an option.
>
>My point exactly, they do just fine.

https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/famine-risk-rises-somalia-rains-fail-food-prices-soar-un-2022-06-06/

--

If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties.
Francis Bacon

On Tue, 07 Jun 2022 21:33:43 +0100, John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 07 Jun 2022 17:02:55 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
> <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 15:39:02 +0100, <jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 11:03:17 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
>>> <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 04 Jun 2022 15:51:52 +0100, <jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 16:07:54 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 2:11:48 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 14:04:57 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> >On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 11:04:42 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >> Oil and gas are great. Once you drill a well, the stuff just comes up
>>>>>>> >> and flows into a pipeline. No dust, no miners, no crushers, no
>>>>>>> >> chemicals, ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >Huh? One hundred percent chemical product, guy! Byproducts
>>>>>>> >galore, so much pollution the weather is taking notice!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Go live in a tent. Forage for food. Burn rushes for light. Wear fur
>>>>>>> when it's cold. Cook over dung. Walk everywhere. Enjoy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> JL is so shortsighted, he only sees the input end of 'a pipeline',
>>>>>> and ignores the other one. As long as he's on this planet, the
>>>>>> other end IS his concern, just one he's neglected for decades.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm in a warm house, in front of a computer drinking hot Peets coffee.
>>>>> All that thanks to fossil fuel. I don't ignore this stuff; I
>>>>> appreciate it all the time, as I have for decades.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fossil fuels are lifting the world out of miserable poverty. Net Zero,
>>>>> if that crazy idea ever could happen, would kill billions and set the
>>>>> world back centuries.
>>>>>
>>>>> But be as afraid as you want to be. Some people live in fear by
>>>>> nature. There are hilarious youtubes of neurotic terrified young
>>>>> airheads who have despaired on life because AGW will destroy all human
>>>>> life soon.
>>>>>
>>>>> Some things that have revolutionized agricultural yield are
>>>>> ammonia-based fertilizers, farm machinery, pumped watering, transport,
>>>>> and more CO2. All from fossil fuels.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, the CO2 increase was probably mostly natural.
>>>>
>>>> We wouldn't die off because of lack of heating and cars. We would just live a less fun life.
>>>
>>> There are still a few billion people for whom fun isn't an option.
>>
>> My point exactly, they do just fine.
>
> https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/famine-risk-rises-somalia-rains-fail-food-prices-soar-un-2022-06-06/

Nothing to do with a lack of resources.

On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 18:55:03 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 1:02:46 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>> On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 4:37:17 PM UTC+2, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> > On Sat, 4 Jun 2022 11:53:34 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 7:52:06 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> > >> On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 16:07:54 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> >On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 2:11:48 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>> > >> >> On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 14:04:57 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> >> >On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 11:04:42 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>> <snip>
>> > >Okay, and I'm in a warm house, computer, Peets coffee (Big Bang)
>> > >but my electricity is hydroelectric, and I'm not a shortsighted jackass.
>> > >The next decades do not have to replicate previous ones. Design
>> > >them for improvement, and ditch the insistence on familiarity: there's
>> > >THREE terms in a PID control, and it works because it acknowledges a
>> > >plausible future. You need to dial down the integral term, or it'll kill the regulation.
>> >
>> > Even assuming that burning oil and gas is the major contributor to atmospheric CO2,
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suess_effect
>>
>> That's a fact, not an assumption.
>
> I was not aware of that. Makes sense. It seems pretty convincing too... unless someone wished to fend it off by saying the equivalent of, "It's that way because that's the way God made it!" Not that anyone here is going to invoke God, but many seem to believe in the concept that AGW can't be true, "because".

Atmospheric CO2 is good for crops.

>> > and further assuming that the C02 is causing warming,
>> That's a fact too, if you take the trouble to work out which bits of the atmosphere are radiating which infrared photons out to outer space.
>> > and then assuming that warming is bad,
>> Warming isn't the whole of it. Climate climate change is floods and fires, and new parasites and diseases.
>> > the benefits from oil and gas
>> As sources of energy. They can now be replaced, more cheaply, by solar cells and windmills and a lot of short term battery back-up and large scale grids.
>> This is going on right now in Australia because the electricity generating utilities want to save money.
>> > far outweigh these hypothetical dangers.
>> Only your judgement is as poor as John Larkin's. The dangers are real and are showing up in real life.
>> > Especially for the billions of truly poor people in the world.
>> If renewable energy is a cheaper source of power than burning fossil carbon, the truly poor people will go for it - as they are doing anyway. Solar cells come in small packages so you can buy enough for yourself to make a difference to your life without having to wait for a Lenin-figure to electrify the whole country.
>> > Read about life before the 17th century. It was horrible. Even the
>> > elites and royalty had pretty awful lives, and regular people lived on
>> > the edge of death. Half their kids died young. So many women died in
>> > childbirth that their average lifespan was 25. The average man made it
>> > to 32.
>> The Agricultural Revolution didn't depend on fossil carbon. Better sanitation - clean water - has done more for the average life-span than any amount of fossil carbon.
>> > Big contributor to survival: ammonia-based fertilizers.
>> >
>> > https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/03/05/sri-lanka-organic-farming-crisis/
>> If you put somebody as pig-ignorant as John Larkin in charge of agriculture you can expect this kind of disaster. The Agricultural Revolution exploited nitrogen-fixing bacteria to get the necessary nitrates into the soil. Ammonia synthesis lets you produce a lot of fertiliser in a big factory and make a lot of money in the process, but it isn't the only way of getting nitrogen-based fertilisers, and it isn't the cheapest route either.
>
> Not just ignorant, but willfully so. He never reads enough about the theories to actually understand them, but he is happy to read every drop of the denialist

Using that word loses the argument instantly.

On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 22:14:09 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

> On 06/05/2022 08:37 AM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> On Sat, 4 Jun 2022 11:53:34 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 7:52:06 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 16:07:54 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 2:11:48 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 14:04:57 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 11:04:42 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oil and gas are great. Once you drill a well, the stuff just comes up
>>>>>>>> and flows into a pipeline. No dust, no miners, no crushers, no
>>>>>>>> chemicals, ...
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Huh? One hundred percent chemical product, guy! Byproducts
>>>>>>> galore, so much pollution the weather is taking notice!
>>>>>
>>>>>> Go live in a tent. Forage for food. Burn rushes for light. Wear fur
>>>>>> when it's cold. Cook over dung. Walk everywhere. Enjoy.
>>>>>
>>>>> JL is so shortsighted, he only sees the input end of 'a pipeline',
>>>>> and ignores the other one. As long as he's on this planet, the
>>>>> other end IS his concern, just one he's neglected for decades.
>>>
>>>> I'm in a warm house, in front of a computer drinking hot Peets coffee.
>>>> All that thanks to fossil fuel. I don't ignore this stuff; I
>>>> appreciate it all the time, as I have for decades.
>>>
>>> Okay, and I'm in a warm house, computer, Peets coffee (Big Bang)
>>> but my electricity is hydroelectric, and I'm not a shortsighted jackass.
>>> The next decades do not have to replicate previous ones. Design
>>> them for improvement, and ditch the insistence on familiarity: there's
>>> THREE terms in a PID control, and it works because it acknowledges a
>>> plausible future. You need to dial down the integral term, or it'll kill the regulation.
>>
>> Even assuming that burning oil and gas is the major contributer to
>> atmospheric CO2, and further assuming that the C02 is causing warming,
>> and then assuming that warming is bad, the benefits from oil and gas
>> far outweigh these hypothetical dangers. Especially for the billions
>> of truly poor people in the world.
>>
>> Read about life before the 17th century. It was horrible. Even the
>> elites and royalty had pretty awful lives, and regular people lived on
>> the edge of death. Half their kids died young. So many women died in
>> childbirth that their average lifespan was 25. The average man made it
>> to 32.
>>
>> Big contributor to survival: ammonia-based fertilizers.
>>
>> https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/03/05/sri-lanka-organic-farming-crisis/
>
> That cuts both ways. In the '60s and '70s prior to the 'Green
> Revolution' India was facing famine. The new crops, dependent on
> chemical fertilizers and irrigation, saved the day. What has happened to
> India's population since that era? What will be the outcome if the
> farmers can't afford the chemical fertilizers?

Less Indians, the problem being?

> Even in the US manure suddenly has become a hot commodity.

It does generate heat, yes.

You could do what the French do, use human shit to fertilize fields.

> If you're talking about white tail deer, for example, there is little
> argument that the deer will reproduce until they exceed the carrying
> capacity of the habitat. Then the population will be reduced one way or
> another. With wise game management you strive to keep the herd at
> maximum sustainable yield, about half of the maximum BCC.

Why intervene when they'll hit the limit themselves?

> Are humans exempt? Cornucopians think so and there will always be
> another technological advance. What happens when they run out of rabbits
> to pull out of the hat?

I'd love less humans and more space.

On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 19:13:16 +0100, whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 7:37:17 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> On Sat, 4 Jun 2022 11:53:34 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>
>> >The next decades do not have to replicate previous ones. Design
>> >them for improvement, and ditch the insistence on familiarity: there's
>> >THREE terms in a PID control, and it works because it acknowledges a
>> >plausible future. You need to dial down the integral term, or it'll kill the regulation.
>
>> Even assuming that burning oil and gas is the major contributer to
>
> NOT an assumption, we have the numbers and isotopic composition confirmation
>
>> atmospheric CO2, and further assuming that the C02 is causing warming,
>
> NOT an assumption, we have a good idea how radiant heat transfer dominates
> the Earth's temperature and we know the atmosphere and sunlight effect of
> a variety of gasses.
>
> [more blather deleted; I'm not gonna dissect the whole pile of lies and distortions]
>
>> Read about life before the 17th century. It was horrible.
>
> Not relevant, because we aren't heading into a future that
> resembles the 16th century. Also, there isn't a monster in your closet.
>
> Greta Thunberg gets it; why doesn't John Larkin?

Because he isn't a worry-wart like you?

On Mon, 06 Jun 2022 03:26:03 +0100, Ed Lee <edward.ming.lee@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 1:48:19 PM UTC-7, rbowman wrote:
>> On 06/05/2022 05:21 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> > On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 02:13:06 +0100, rbowman <bow...@montana.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 06/04/2022 03:40 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
>> >>> rbowman wrote:
>> >>>> On 06/04/2022 01:00 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> >>>>> On Sat, 04 Jun 2022 05:06:15 +0100, rbowman <bow...@montana.com>
>> >>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> On 06/03/2022 12:04 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>> >>>>>>> On Thu, 2 Jun 2022 22:06:25 -0600, rbowman <bow...@montana.com>
>> >>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> On 06/02/2022 02:18 PM, ke...@kjwdesigns.com wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 31 May 2022 at 21:55:55 UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> You said "minors" meaning young people, nothing about mining.
>> >>>>>>>>>> OCD fuckwit. I actually spelt it like that for a laugh, making
>> >>>>>>>>>> fun
>> >>>>>>>>>> of our fucked up language. Anyway minors are more fun than
>> >>>>>>>>>> miners.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Unusual sense of humour.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> How are we supposed to know what you mean?
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> It could mean either in the context of the conversation.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> And most Lithium is "mined" using brine extraction, it does not
>> >>>>>>>>>>> involve digging holes.
>> >>>>>>>>>> https://champ4mt.com/the-dangers-of-lithium-mining-and-how-to-do-something-about-it.html
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> kw
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Then there are the minor miners:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> https://allthatsinteresting.com/child-miners#27
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Oil and gas are great. Once you drill a well, the stuff just
>> >>>>>>> comes up
>> >>>>>>> and flows into a pipeline. No dust, no miners, no crushers, no
>> >>>>>>> chemicals, no trucks, no tailings. Nobody even needs to be there.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Fracking needs a little more attention, but the action is still deep
>> >>>>>>> underground.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> I always get a kick out of those grasshoppers out in the middle of
>> >>>>>> nowhere doing there thing. I get even a bigger kick out of the
>> >>>>>> ones you
>> >>>>>> stumble over in the middle of Anaheim. iirc there were a couple off
>> >>>>>> State College north of Ball.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I take it you mean a https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcykqOwDvyc
>> >>>>> and not
>> >>>>> a https://youtu.be/NfJQx8ZEr54?t=50 or a https://youtu.be/yMFqyabMJTo
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Yup. The other part of it is the flares. You'd be driving through
>> >>>> Wyoming at night in the middle of nowhere and there would be flares
>> >>>> miles off the road. Rather eerie.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I don't know if the still burn the gas off oil wells, gorbal warming
>> >>>> and all, you know.
>> >>>
>> >>> A lot of stranded gas is now liquefied using thermoacoustic fridges
>> >>> powered by a much smaller amount of gas. IIRC the yield is something
>> >>> like 70%, which is a big win.
>> >>
>> >> After a little reading the volume dropped off for a while but has picked
>> >> up again.
>> >>
>> >> https://www.naturalgasintel.com/permian-methane-flaring-venting-said-still-stubbornly-high/
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> That article claims
>> >>
>> >> EDF said other satellite data indicates Permian operators sent 280 Bcf
>> >> of gas worth about $420 million up their flare stacks in 2019, which was
>> >> “more than enough to supply every home in Texas.”
>
> Gas price was still cheap in 2019, around $3. It's $8 today and unlikely to fall back again. So, less of the stuff should be burning up.

I'm amazed it was ever a good idea to burn off something you could sell for a fortune.

On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 21:48:10 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

> On 06/05/2022 05:21 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 02:13:06 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 06/04/2022 03:40 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
>>>> rbowman wrote:
>>>>> On 06/04/2022 01:00 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 04 Jun 2022 05:06:15 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 06/03/2022 12:04 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2 Jun 2022 22:06:25 -0600, rbowman <bowman@montana.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 06/02/2022 02:18 PM, ke...@kjwdesigns.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 31 May 2022 at 21:55:55 UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You said "minors" meaning young people, nothing about mining.
>>>>>>>>>>> OCD fuckwit. I actually spelt it like that for a laugh, making
>>>>>>>>>>> fun
>>>>>>>>>>> of our fucked up language. Anyway minors are more fun than
>>>>>>>>>>> miners.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Unusual sense of humour.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How are we supposed to know what you mean?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It could mean either in the context of the conversation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And most Lithium is "mined" using brine extraction, it does not
>>>>>>>>>>>> involve digging holes.
>>>>>>>>>>> https://champ4mt.com/the-dangers-of-lithium-mining-and-how-to-do-something-about-it.html
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> kw
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Then there are the minor miners:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://allthatsinteresting.com/child-miners#27
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oil and gas are great. Once you drill a well, the stuff just
>>>>>>>> comes up
>>>>>>>> and flows into a pipeline. No dust, no miners, no crushers, no
>>>>>>>> chemicals, no trucks, no tailings. Nobody even needs to be there.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Fracking needs a little more attention, but the action is still deep
>>>>>>>> underground.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I always get a kick out of those grasshoppers out in the middle of
>>>>>>> nowhere doing there thing. I get even a bigger kick out of the
>>>>>>> ones you
>>>>>>> stumble over in the middle of Anaheim. iirc there were a couple off
>>>>>>> State College north of Ball.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I take it you mean a https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcykqOwDvyc
>>>>>> and not
>>>>>> a https://youtu.be/NfJQx8ZEr54?t=50 or a https://youtu.be/yMFqyabMJTo
>>>>>
>>>>> Yup. The other part of it is the flares. You'd be driving through
>>>>> Wyoming at night in the middle of nowhere and there would be flares
>>>>> miles off the road. Rather eerie.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know if the still burn the gas off oil wells, gorbal warming
>>>>> and all, you know.
>>>>
>>>> A lot of stranded gas is now liquefied using thermoacoustic fridges
>>>> powered by a much smaller amount of gas. IIRC the yield is something
>>>> like 70%, which is a big win.
>>>
>>> After a little reading the volume dropped off for a while but has picked
>>> up again.
>>>
>>> https://www.naturalgasintel.com/permian-methane-flaring-venting-said-still-stubbornly-high/
>>>
>>>
>>> That article claims
>>>
>>> EDF said other satellite data indicates Permian operators sent 280 Bcf
>>> of gas worth about $420 million up their flare stacks in 2019, which was
>>> “more than enough to supply every home in Texas.”
>>>
>>>
>>> It wouldn't have helped the infrastructure problems but it's ironic that
>>> during the Big Freeze last year the varmints in the Permian were warm
>>> and cozy.
>>
>> Who, what, or where, is the Permian?
>
> The Permian basin in West Texas and eastern New Mexico.
>
> https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=30952
>
>
> As someone pointed out flaring the gas is seen as the lesser of two
> evils, since the gas is mostly methane which is seen as a bigger problem
> than CO2. There are plenty of leaks so you get the best of both worlds,
> methane and CO2.

What's that place with a permanent fire they can't put out?

On Mon, 06 Jun 2022 06:39:45 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 10:26:08 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
>>
>> Gas price was still cheap in 2019, around $3. It's $8 today and unlikely to fall back again. So, less of the stuff should be burning up.
>
> Of course the price of gas won't stay at $8 a gallon. If nothing else, over the next few years, the amount consumed will drop 10% because of BEVs and that will continue to make permanent decreases in the price of oil and gasoline.

You silly American. Gas is methane, petrol is octane.

On Tue, 07 Jun 2022 16:38:36 +0100, John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 10:07:23 -0700 (PDT), Ed Lee
> <edward.ming.lee@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 11:09:47 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>>> On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 7:39:50 AM UTC+2, Ricky wrote:
>>> > On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 10:26:08 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > Gas price was still cheap in 2019, around $3. It's $8 today and unlikely to fall back again. So, less of the stuff should be burning up.
>>> > Of course the price of gas won't stay at $8 a gallon. If nothing else, over the next few years, the amount consumed will drop 10% because of BEVs and that will continue to make permanent decreases in the price of oil and gasoline.
>>> >
>>> There is an enviromental argument for taxing it more heavily, so less of it gets burnt. As more renewable energy becomes availalble, taxing fossil carbon will put less of crimp on the economy as a whole, so it probably will happen, but the fossil carbon extraction industry won't like it.
>>
>> Not sure if it really make sense to ship LNG to Europe. We (US) got more than enough and Europe need more of it. For $8 NG, it costs around $3 to liquidify, $6 to ship and $2 to gasify. It makes zero economical sense, but only political sense.
>
> Unless people are freezing. Winter is coming.

Blankets are cheaper.

On Mon, 06 Jun 2022 18:07:23 +0100, Ed Lee <edward.ming.lee@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 11:09:47 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>> On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 7:39:50 AM UTC+2, Ricky wrote:
>> > On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 10:26:08 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Gas price was still cheap in 2019, around $3. It's $8 today and unlikely to fall back again. So, less of the stuff should be burning up.
>> > Of course the price of gas won't stay at $8 a gallon. If nothing else, over the next few years, the amount consumed will drop 10% because of BEVs and that will continue to make permanent decreases in the price of oil and gasoline.
>> >
>> There is an enviromental argument for taxing it more heavily, so less of it gets burnt. As more renewable energy becomes availalble, taxing fossil carbon will put less of crimp on the economy as a whole, so it probably will happen, but the fossil carbon extraction industry won't like it.
>
> Not sure if it really make sense to ship LNG to Europe. We (US) got more than enough and Europe need more of it. For $8 NG, it costs around $3 to liquidify, $6 to ship and $2 to gasify. It makes zero economical sense, but only political sense.

Somebody told me they froze it, but that's -181 degrees, which is maybe unfeasible on ships.

On Tue, 07 Jun 2022 06:27:09 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

> On 06/06/2022 11:07 AM, Ed Lee wrote:
>> On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 11:09:47 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>>> On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 7:39:50 AM UTC+2, Ricky wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 10:26:08 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Gas price was still cheap in 2019, around $3. It's $8 today and unlikely to fall back again. So, less of the stuff should be burning up.
>>>> Of course the price of gas won't stay at $8 a gallon. If nothing else, over the next few years, the amount consumed will drop 10% because of BEVs and that will continue to make permanent decreases in the price of oil and gasoline.
>>>>
>>> There is an enviromental argument for taxing it more heavily, so less of it gets burnt. As more renewable energy becomes availalble, taxing fossil carbon will put less of crimp on the economy as a whole, so it probably will happen, but the fossil carbon extraction industry won't like it.
>>
>> Not sure if it really make sense to ship LNG to Europe. We (US) got more than enough and Europe need more of it. For $8 NG, it costs around $3 to liquidify, $6 to ship and $2 to gasify. It makes zero economical sense, but only political sense.
>>
>
> It's not an overnight solution either. The last I knew Germany was light
> on LNG terminals that could easily be wired into the existing pipelines
> for distribution. I see it as the US trying to sweet talk them into
> something that really isn't to their advantage. The Ukraine fiasco is a
> good excuse for dropping the pipeline that would be the obvious answer.

Fuck the Ukrainians, buy cheap Russian gas!

On Wednesday, June 8, 2022 at 12:02:50 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 19:13:16 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 7:37:17 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

> >> Read about life before the 17th century. It was horrible.
> >
> > Not relevant, because we aren't heading into a future that
> > resembles the 16th century. Also, there isn't a monster in your closet.
> >
> > Greta Thunberg gets it; why doesn't John Larkin?

> Because he isn't a worry-wart like you?

Huh? You're telling me it's rational to think the future will be
like pre-seventeenth-century as described in (mainly European) books?
John Larkin IS certainly a worry-wart.

On Wed, 08 Jun 2022 22:57:08 +0100, whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, June 8, 2022 at 12:02:50 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 19:13:16 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 7:37:17 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>
>> >> Read about life before the 17th century. It was horrible.
>> >
>> > Not relevant, because we aren't heading into a future that
>> > resembles the 16th century. Also, there isn't a monster in your closet.
>> >
>> > Greta Thunberg gets it; why doesn't John Larkin?
>
>> Because he isn't a worry-wart like you?
>
> Huh? You're telling me it's rational to think the future will be
> like pre-seventeenth-century as described in (mainly European) books?
> John Larkin IS certainly a worry-wart.

No, it's you worrying about this fictitious end of the world scenario just because of a bit of gas.

He is sensibly pointing out life would be shit without mod cons. So yes, he is being rational in that assumption. Imagine no transport for trade for example.

On Wed, 08 Jun 2022 20:00:27 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
<CK1@nospam.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 18:55:03 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 1:02:46 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>>> On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 4:37:17 PM UTC+2, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>> > On Sat, 4 Jun 2022 11:53:34 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > >On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 7:52:06 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>> > >> On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 16:07:54 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > >> >On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 2:11:48 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>>> > >> >> On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 14:04:57 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > >> >> >On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 11:04:42 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>> > >Okay, and I'm in a warm house, computer, Peets coffee (Big Bang)
>>> > >but my electricity is hydroelectric, and I'm not a shortsighted jackass.
>>> > >The next decades do not have to replicate previous ones. Design
>>> > >them for improvement, and ditch the insistence on familiarity: there's
>>> > >THREE terms in a PID control, and it works because it acknowledges a
>>> > >plausible future. You need to dial down the integral term, or it'll kill the regulation.
>>> >
>>> > Even assuming that burning oil and gas is the major contributor to atmospheric CO2,
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suess_effect
>>>
>>> That's a fact, not an assumption.
>>
>> I was not aware of that. Makes sense. It seems pretty convincing too... unless someone wished to fend it off by saying the equivalent of, "It's that way because that's the way God made it!" Not that anyone here is going to invoke God, but many seem to believe in the concept that AGW can't be true, "because".
>
>Atmospheric CO2 is good for crops.
>
>>> > and further assuming that the C02 is causing warming,
>>> That's a fact too, if you take the trouble to work out which bits of the atmosphere are radiating which infrared photons out to outer space.
>>> > and then assuming that warming is bad,
>>> Warming isn't the whole of it. Climate climate change is floods and fires, and new parasites and diseases.
>>> > the benefits from oil and gas
>>> As sources of energy. They can now be replaced, more cheaply, by solar cells and windmills and a lot of short term battery back-up and large scale grids.
>>> This is going on right now in Australia because the electricity generating utilities want to save money.
>>> > far outweigh these hypothetical dangers.
>>> Only your judgement is as poor as John Larkin's. The dangers are real and are showing up in real life.
>>> > Especially for the billions of truly poor people in the world.
>>> If renewable energy is a cheaper source of power than burning fossil carbon, the truly poor people will go for it - as they are doing anyway. Solar cells come in small packages so you can buy enough for yourself to make a difference to your life without having to wait for a Lenin-figure to electrify the whole country.
>>> > Read about life before the 17th century. It was horrible. Even the
>>> > elites and royalty had pretty awful lives, and regular people lived on
>>> > the edge of death. Half their kids died young. So many women died in
>>> > childbirth that their average lifespan was 25. The average man made it
>>> > to 32.
>>> The Agricultural Revolution didn't depend on fossil carbon. Better sanitation - clean water - has done more for the average life-span than any amount of fossil carbon.
>>> > Big contributor to survival: ammonia-based fertilizers.
>>> >
>>> > https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/03/05/sri-lanka-organic-farming-crisis/
>>> If you put somebody as pig-ignorant as John Larkin in charge of agriculture you can expect this kind of disaster. The Agricultural Revolution exploited nitrogen-fixing bacteria to get the necessary nitrates into the soil. Ammonia synthesis lets you produce a lot of fertiliser in a big factory and make a lot of money in the process, but it isn't the only way of getting nitrogen-based fertilisers, and it isn't the cheapest route either.
>>
>> Not just ignorant, but willfully so. He never reads enough about the theories to actually understand them, but he is happy to read every drop of the denialist
>
>Using that word loses the argument instantly.

They don't matter, so don't waste time arguing.

Design something.

--

If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties.
Francis Bacon

On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 14:57:08 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, June 8, 2022 at 12:02:50 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 19:13:16 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 7:37:17 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>
>> >> Read about life before the 17th century. It was horrible.
>> >
>> > Not relevant, because we aren't heading into a future that
>> > resembles the 16th century. Also, there isn't a monster in your closet.
>> >
>> > Greta Thunberg gets it; why doesn't John Larkin?
>
>> Because he isn't a worry-wart like you?
>
>Huh? You're telling me it's rational to think the future will be
>like pre-seventeenth-century as described in (mainly European) books?
>John Larkin IS certainly a worry-wart.

It's rational to think that the future will be a lot like the recent
past, with things getting steadily better for humankind. What the
middle ages show us is how incredibly better off we are with oil, gas,
and electricity.

And I was born without a sense of fear. My biggest worry is about what
I'll make for breakfast.

Apple galette or biscuits or grits and eggs? Oh, the stress!

--

If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties.
Francis Bacon