Which party will support this effort?

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

What is the justification for them sitting on land that they're not exploiting?
Because they paid for the right. Property rights are the foundation of capitalism.

This is like arguing "Hey, you make a lot of money and your home is a high-traffic area, so let's have the government seize your house and build a 7/11 there as you're not properly exploiting the resource."

Google has ridiculous profits too. I guess we should seize their property as well?

Anyways, it's a huge red herring. There are no exploitable resources being ignored.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

Josh Cryer
Posts: 526
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 7:19 am

Post by Josh Cryer »

Yes there are, you can't dispute Shell's successful oil shale technology and the variety of in situ oil shale experiments. Just because it's not "profitable" (ie it's in the research phase) does not mean that it's somehow magically not exploitable.

And please spare me the whole "property rights" thing. The land is *leased* which means the government can do whatever the heck it wants with the land.

Is that *really* your only justification for their sitting on a trillion plus (yes you read that right) barrels of oil? Please, c'mon. This is freaking America dude. Pioneers! Innovation! Man.

There are several guys I know who are all high on the idea of us getting together and putting together a grant proposal to the DOE with regards to oil shale exploration (remember, trillion+ barrels of oil).

The likelihood of being able to do it under a Republican? None, nada, zilch. Because the innovators aren't allowed to mess around on land that someone else has leased.

Unless the law changes and they're told to get off that land of course. (Just fyi they have leased *all the land that is not in terribly impossibly accessable terrain* in the green river formation. I cannot emphasize this enough, there is simply no method for competition here.)

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

Just because it's not "profitable" (ie it's in the research phase) does not mean that it's somehow magically not exploitable.
Yes, in fact that's exactly what it means. Unless you're suggesting a return to Communism, companies must operate at a profit. The people that own the companies (such as people with pension funds) are pretty adamant on that point.
The land is *leased* which means the government can do whatever the heck it wants with the land.
What??? A lease is a purchased right. Do you think when you "lease" an apartment, the lessor can just kick you out whenever he wants?
Because the innovators aren't allowed to mess around on land that someone else has leased.
Yes, and oddly enough, other people aren't allowed to live in your house/apartment.

This is freaking America dude.
At least for now. You seem to be advocating we turn it into Soviet Russia.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

Josh Cryer
Posts: 526
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 7:19 am

Post by Josh Cryer »

TallDave,
Yes, in fact that's exactly what it means. Unless you're suggesting a return to Communism, companies must operate at a profit.
So all research is communistic? That's cute. I'm not saying the companies should *lose money* to exploit these reserves. I'm saying they should use their *windfall profits* to put into some *R&D* to exploit those resources. Are you arguing that in situ production is *so costly* as to make them be *unable to do it*? Because I can show you plenty of reports about this particular technology. It has a positive EROI. Can happen tomorrow.
What??? A lease is a purchased right. Do you think when you "lease" an apartment, the lessor can just kick you out whenever he wants?
Yes. Absolutely. If I break that lease. And many leases have a retroactive clause, and retain all rights for the leasor. Perhaps you've never read a lease before?

The government leases are no doubt the same in all respects.
Oddly enough, I'm not allowed to live in your house.
I'm using my house. But if you talk to my leasor and try to get him to kick me out in order to get paid more I'm sure he can use capitalism to his advantage and do so. (Those leases, they have so many dirty little catches in 'em.)
At least for now. You seem to be advocating we turn it into Soviet Russia.
I'm advocating competition. You're advocating monopolies on some spurious definition of what "exploitable" and "profit" constitute. The irony here is that if the government did this, what would happen is one of two things, the oil companies would actually go and exploit the reserves, or not exploit the reserves and fall to the wayside to a competitor who actually innovates.

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

Yes there are, you can't dispute Shell's successful oil shale technology and the variety of in situ oil shale experiments.
There aren't just experiments, there are all kinds of active oil shale industries all over the world, esp Estonia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale_extraction

The main reasons we don't do it here are legal and environmental:

Environmentalists oppose production and usage of oil shale, as it generates usually more greenhouse gases than conventional fossil fuels.[74] Section 526 of the Energy Independence And Security Act prohibits United States government agencies from buying oil produced by processes that produce more greenhouse gas emissions than traditional petroleum extraction.[76][77]
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

Josh Cryer
Posts: 526
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 7:19 am

Post by Josh Cryer »

In situ is the way to go. The main reason they don't do it is because the R&D = loss of near term profit = loss of long term profit. Fact.

Tell me TallDave, what happens to oil prices if they're pumping out a few million barrels a day in the Green River Formation? What happens to *profit*?

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

I'm not saying the companies should *lose money* to exploit these reserves.
Yes, that's exactly what you're saying. You're saying they should extract it whether it's profitable to do so or not.
Yes. Absolutely. If I break that lease.
The correct answer is "of course not" absent the very big "if" there. Are you saying they broke their lease?
I'm using my house.
As the oil companies would say they "using" land even if they're not exploiting it fully. But are you exploiting your house fully? Perhaps the Mexican family with 10 kids in a room down the street disagrees. Why are you selfishly insisting the house is yours even though you're barely using it?
I'm advocating competition.
Seizing property and forcing companies to operate at a loss is not "competition."
Last edited by TallDave on Fri Sep 05, 2008 9:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

Tell me TallDave, what happens to oil prices if they're pumping out a few million barrels a day in the Green River Formation? What happens to *profit*?
If the cost of the oil is less than the price, the company producing the oil makes a huge profit. Any company that could do so would. This should be fairly obvious to anyone not in love with conspiracy theories.

World oil production is something like 80M bpd, of which 8M bpd comes from the US. If a company could add 3M bpd, it would not drop prices nearly enough to offset the huge increase in profits from the increase in volume. I trust I don't need a graph to prove this is true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_oil_production
Last edited by TallDave on Fri Sep 05, 2008 9:18 pm, edited 3 times in total.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

ravingdave
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:41 am

Post by ravingdave »

JoeStrout wrote:
Josh Cryer wrote:All politicians are liars. All politicians are unknown variables. Politicians are "handled" by a feedback. If they *don't* do what they promised they would do, and cannot give a good explaination for their failure, then they may or may not get reelected.
That's certainly been the case for a long time — and is pretty much a plank of the Republican party, leading them not only to lie extensively about their opposition, but to claim their opponents are lying, without a single example to point out. Their strategy seems to be: we've been caught lying, so let's accuse them of lying too, so the stupid voters will just conclude that everybody is lying and we won't look so bad..

I saw that article you are pointing out. It is in my opinion an attempt to mislead. Let's look at it.

PALIN: "I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending ... and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. I told the Congress 'thanks but no thanks' for that Bridge to Nowhere."

THE FACTS: As mayor of Wasilla, Palin hired a lobbyist and traveled to Washington annually to support earmarks for the town totaling $27 million. In her two years as governor, Alaska has requested nearly $750 million in special federal spending, by far the largest per-capita request in the nation. While Palin notes she rejected plans to build a $398 million bridge from Ketchikan to an island with 50 residents and an airport, that opposition came only after the plan was ridiculed nationally as a "bridge to nowhere."

The so called "facts" statement does not disprove Sarah Palin's Statement. She has protected taxpayers from wasteful spending and she did tell Congress "Thanks but No Thanks" for that Bridge to Nowhere.

What is not true ?


PALIN: "There is much to like and admire about our opponent. But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform — not even in the state senate."

THE FACTS: Compared to McCain and his two decades in the Senate, Obama does have a more meager record. But he has worked with Republicans to pass legislation that expanded efforts to intercept illegal shipments of weapons of mass destruction and to help destroy conventional weapons stockpiles. The legislation became law last year. To demean that accomplishment would be to also demean the work of Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, a respected foreign policy voice in the Senate. In Illinois, he was the leader on two big, contentious measures in Illinois: studying racial profiling by police and requiring recordings of interrogations in potential death penalty cases. He also successfully co-sponsored major ethics reform legislation

Major law or reform ? Well, i've heard of McCain\Kennedy, McCain\Feingold, McCain\Feinstein, Grahm\Rudman, Taft\Harltley,
etc. I've never heard of Obama\Lugar, or Obama anything else.

So maybe JIM KUHNHENN considers whatever it is that Obama did as a Major law or reform, but I don't. A difference of opinion on how important something is does not make someone a liar.

Again, what did she say that wasn't true ?




PALIN: "The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes, raise payroll taxes, raise investment income taxes, raise the death tax, raise business taxes, and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars."

THE FACTS: The Tax Policy Center, a think tank run jointly by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, concluded that Obama's plan would increase after-tax income for middle-income taxpayers by about 5 percent by 2012, or nearly $2,200 annually. McCain's plan, which cuts taxes across all income levels, would raise after tax-income for middle-income taxpayers by 3 percent, the center concluded.

Obama would provide $80 billion in tax breaks, mainly for poor workers and the elderly, including tripling the Earned Income Tax Credit for minimum-wage workers and higher credits for larger families.

He also would raise income taxes, capital gains and dividend taxes on the wealthiest. He would raise payroll taxes on taxpayers with incomes above $250,000, and he would raise corporate taxes. Small businesses that make more than $250,000 a year would see taxes rise.




Both the Brookings institute and the Urban Institute are run by Democrats. (Zoe Baird comes to mind) I don't trust their numbers on anything without coroberation from more credible sources.

Again, this is an attempt to equate a difference of opinion with lying. I personally think her statement is absolutely correct, and in any case JIM KUHNHENN is simply a partisan who is doing his best to portray her as a lying hypocrite.







MCCAIN: "She's been governor of our largest state, in charge of 20 percent of America's energy supply ... She's responsible for 20 percent of the nation's energy supply. I'm entertained by the comparison and I hope we can keep making that comparison that running a political campaign is somehow comparable to being the executive of the largest state in America," he said in an interview with ABC News' Charles Gibson.

THE FACTS: McCain's phrasing exaggerates both claims. Palin is governor of a state that ranks second nationally in crude oil production, but she's no more "responsible" for that resource than President Bush was when he was governor of Texas, another oil-producing state. In fact, her primary power is the ability to tax oil, which she did in concert with the Alaska Legislature. And where Alaska is the largest state in America, McCain could as easily have called it the 47th largest state — by population.




Okay, maybe i'm slow, but using the number "2nd" does not refute the number "20%" Yeah, Sarah didn't put the oil in the Ground, nor did she Extract it personally, so depending on what you mean by the word "Responsible", she's either a liar or she isn't. I think reasonable people understand what was being said and only a (lying to himself) partisan could claim this was "lying."





FORMER ARKANSAS GOV. MIKE HUCKABEE: Palin "got more votes running for mayor of Wasilla, Alaska than Joe Biden got running for president of the United States."

THE FACTS: A whopper. Palin got 616 votes in the 1996 mayor's election, and got 909 in her 1999 re-election race, for a total of 1,525. Biden dropped out of the race after the Iowa caucuses, but he still got 76,165 votes in 23 states and the District of Columbia where he was on the ballot during the 2008 presidential primaries.


Ronald Reagan once mentioned that he knew Thomas Jefferson, and "Sir, you are no Thomas Jefferson." Peoples reaction wasn't...
You're a LIAR ! You're a LIAR ! it was, ha ha ha... that's pretty funny.
Seriously ? You are gonna fact check a Joke ?

Well, for those of you out there without a sense of humor, the difference between a pit bull and a hockey mom is not lipstick.


Hey, you know what ? I'm tired of pointing out the dishonesty in JIM KUHNHENN's so called "fact checking." How about YOU pick the one that is a lie, and we'll look at it. I've looked at em all, and it looks like Jim is equating differences of opinion with lying, and using straw man tactics to pretend he's proven something.

In my opinion it is JIM KUHNHENN that is lying.





David

Josh Cryer
Posts: 526
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 7:19 am

Post by Josh Cryer »

TallDave wrote:If the cost of the oil is less than the price, the company producing the oil makes a huge profit. This should be fairly obvious to anyone not in love with conspiracy theories.
Not exactly, you see, the oil company puts its oil on the markets, we call this an 'exchange.' Prices are set by people placing what we call 'bids.' The overall price, then, is determined by ones 'demand' for a given product.

There is a high 'demand' for oil in the world, which 'supply' is just able to meet. Naturally if more supply was available, demand would go up with it, but those people making the bids will not have the capacity to make as much as they otherwise would.

You see, the oil shale is still in the ground, TallDave. It is beneficial in the *long term* to maintain the current state of supply, as long as profitablity is maintained. It's beneficial to keep your local reserves and exploit the reserves overseas, if you have a military and a foreign policy that says 'screw them.' But there are also negatives to this irrational behavior, like other countries becoming more innovative than you, and so on. Like wars being fought and blood being spilled.

So we sit on the oil. It only *makes sense*.

Unless the government is for innovation.

There's a reason they said that oil shale is competitive when oil is at $30 a barrel (this happened a long time ago). And there's a darn good reason why it's not being exploited. And it's not for any reason you presented.

Josh Cryer
Posts: 526
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 7:19 am

Post by Josh Cryer »

ravingdave wrote:The so called "facts" statement does not disprove Sarah Palin's Statement. She has protected taxpayers from wasteful spending and she did tell Congress "Thanks but No Thanks" for that Bridge to Nowhere.

What is not true ?
The relevant part of her quote when she claimed that she'd "championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending." While at the same time having the highest *by far, of any city or state in the country* per capita pork ever.

I would respond to the rest of what you wrote but seeing as how you missed that bit I think you already have formed your conclusion and it would just be a waste of my time. (I honestly didn't even read past this part.)

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

There is a high 'demand' for oil in the world, which 'supply' is just able to meet. Naturally if more supply was available, demand would go up with it,
Sigh, there are so many things wrong with that statement.

Econ 101.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demand_curve

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equilibrium_price

There is a demand curve based on price. Currently we are high on the demand curve due to demand growing faster than supply recently, so equilibrium price -- and therefore profit --- is high.
It is beneficial in the *long term* to maintain the current state of supply, as long as profitablity is maintained.
You don't seem to understand that oil companies are not one giant monopoly. The companies that don't produce lose.
There's a reason they said that oil shale is competitive when oil is at $30 a barrel (this happened a long time ago). And there's a darn good reason why it's not being exploited. And it's not for any reason you presented.
OK, so now you're arguing there's a vast conspiracy to keep all our oil in the ground? Heh.

Well, enjoy your lunatic conspiracy theories.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

Roger
Posts: 788
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:03 am
Location: Metro NY

Post by Roger »

Pt Thompson Alaska.

First drilled in '77-79. Loaded with Nat gas and crude.

May 30th, 2008
"This might be the third largest oil field in the state of Alaska," said Anil Chopra of PetroTel, a state-hired geologic consultantAt peak oil production, Point Thomson's output would be 160,000 barrels per day

http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssEner ... 8820080530
28 yrs. NADA.


Palin says use it or lose it....... and is sueing oil companies
May 30. 2008

Palin and her administration, at the same time, are tangling with Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz), the operator of the Point Thomson unit, and its partners over those companies' delays in developing the field.

The failure to drill any wells since 1982, as well as previously stated plans to defer any development until a natural gas pipeline is built, prompted the state to start the legal process of seizing Point Thomson leases, some of which date back to the 1960s.

The state has declared Exxon and its partners -- BP (BP.L: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz), Chevron (CVX.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) and ConocoPhillips -- to be in default of lease terms. The state seeks to put the leases back up for auction so that Point Thomson can be developed by other parties.
In 2006, then-Gov. Frank Murkowski made the opening play in what has become a tense legal chess match, moving to reclaim the more than 100,000 acres of leased state land at Point Thomson with an eye toward offering it to companies more eager to produce.

Gov. Sarah Palin, who succeeded Murkowski, has taken over the match he started.
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.

ravingdave
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:41 am

Post by ravingdave »

I really think it is a bad idea to talk about politics or religion on a website dedicated to Fusion Energy. I doubt any good can come of it. I really think the current topic thread was a mistake, and I refused to look at it for several days.

Now in accordance with my philosophy of "enlightened hypocrisy" i'm gonna have to get my slop from the trough before the other hogs do me out of it.


For starters, I would like to present some info that i've accumulated for a pet theory of mine.


Pivitol Democrats in History.


Andrew Jackson

Woodrow Wilson

Franklin D. Roosevelt

John F. Kennedy

Jimmy Carter


These men were collossaly important for creating the world in which we live today. The only Republican that I can think of that compares with them is Abraham Lincoln.


Anybody remeber their history ?



David

ravingdave
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:41 am

Post by ravingdave »

Roger wrote:Pt Thompson Alaska.

First drilled in '77-79. Loaded with Nat gas and crude.

May 30th, 2008
"This might be the third largest oil field in the state of Alaska," said Anil Chopra of PetroTel, a state-hired geologic consultantAt peak oil production, Point Thomson's output would be 160,000 barrels per day

http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssEner ... 8820080530
28 yrs. NADA.


Palin says use it or lose it....... and is sueing oil companies
May 30. 2008

Palin and her administration, at the same time, are tangling with Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz), the operator of the Point Thomson unit, and its partners over those companies' delays in developing the field.

The failure to drill any wells since 1982, as well as previously stated plans to defer any development until a natural gas pipeline is built, prompted the state to start the legal process of seizing Point Thomson leases, some of which date back to the 1960s.

The state has declared Exxon and its partners -- BP (BP.L: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz), Chevron (CVX.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) and ConocoPhillips -- to be in default of lease terms. The state seeks to put the leases back up for auction so that Point Thomson can be developed by other parties.
In 2006, then-Gov. Frank Murkowski made the opening play in what has become a tense legal chess match, moving to reclaim the more than 100,000 acres of leased state land at Point Thomson with an eye toward offering it to companies more eager to produce.

Gov. Sarah Palin, who succeeded Murkowski, has taken over the match he started.

I suspect that Oil Companies are playing games. For example, it was not so long ago that BP shut down an important oil pipeline in Alaska citing a need for "maintainance." This shutdown just happened to coincide with the massive spike in oil prices. Apparently this pipeline is supposed to be serviced every year, or every couple of years, and it hadn't been serviced for 7 years, so they chose that exact moment to shut it down. Hmmm.....

Same thing with refineries. I often suspect they are playing games with refinery production AND the commodities trading. I think there is a lot of BS going on in lucrative industries of which oil happens to be one.

I likewise think there is a lot of BS going on in the Industry of Government as well.

I think people are basically evil, and will do all sorts of underhanded things to benefit themselves over others. It is the history of the human race.


David

Post Reply