Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps

Page 7 of 16  
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

But often the "mess" has bankrupted companies who were completely blameless.
I refer, of course, to the tragedy over silicone breast implants. Not only was DowCorning significantly harmed, but millions and millions of (real) men were deprived of a signal joy in life.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Only infantile men, actually. And, members of the 54% who can't rite reel gud. You, for instance.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In article
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

Also many of the Superfund sites are related to dumping that was perfectly legal at the time. The legal system also got a fair amount of money from them. In fact, this litigation before the SF money is used is one of the main reasons it takes so long to start clean-up. The feds have to try and find the responsible parties and have to try and get their money from the RPs before they can spend SF money.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
CJT wrote:

When was the last super fund site created (not designated)? That is old news and has little to do with current practices. Rather like the anti ANWR drilling loon insist drilling would destroy ANWR while the reality is that a few small sites along the perimeter using current directional drilling technology could tap ANWR with essentially no impact. Same with the anti logging loons where the old clear cut mess went away long ago and we now have selective helicopter logging with no logging roads at all.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Pete C. wrote:

In other words, what you call "the loons" have had a worthwhile effect.
Do you suppose directional drilling would be chosen ABSENT opposition?
--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form snipped-for-privacy@prodigy.net.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Actually, yes it would! But that is because it does not do what he thinks it does. Probably most new production wells on the North Slope today (if not all), use directional drilling. The method is to drill a vertical hole from immediately above a reservoir straight down into the center of the reservoir. Typically multiple wells heads can be spaced at 10 feet apart on the surface. Each well might typically be a 7000 foot deep hole on the North Slope. From that depth drilling goes at an angle, from 70 to 110 degrees to the vertical hole, off to the side. Current technology allows literally steering the drill, and it can go up, down, or in a cork screw! What it can do of significance is find and tap relatively small pockets of oil that would never drain into a single centrally located well hole. It greatly increases production from most reservoirs and from individual wells.
I'm not sure what the actual distance that can be covered horizontally, but the last time I looked it up was a couple years ago and it was less than 2 miles.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) snipped-for-privacy@apaflo.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You are *grossly* misinformed about what "directional drilling technology" is and what it can do. The coastal plain of ANWR is 15 to 45 miles deep, and extends east/west for approximately 100 miles. Directional drilling could not even begin to cover even the narrowest part (where at least 7.5 miles would be required), never mind the widest areas.
The Alpine field, near the village of Nuiqsut and the western most producing field in the Prudhoe Bay complex today, was discovered in 1996 and uses directional drilling exclusively. It came on line in 2000. ConocoPhillips, the operator, then constructed a satellite well site, Fiord, five miles north of the Alpine pad. Later a second satellite field, Nanuq, was constructed 4 miles south of the Alpine field. Rather clearly the maximum reach for horizontal drilling does not exceed 2 miles.
Note that even if there was directional drilling capable of doing what you claim, it would *still* have a dramatic and negative impact on the Porcupine Caribou herd. That is because the topology required for your suggested method would necessarily circle the 1002 area with roads and pipelines. Which of course is not significantly different than building a lattice of roads and pipelines as is actually necessary for production.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) snipped-for-privacy@apaflo.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote:

Directional drilling technology is where it is now because it meets the current need. Do you honestly think that the necessary upgrades to the technology would not be made in short order if clearance to drill from selected sites around ANWR were given? Lots of things weren't possible until there was motivation and funding to actually get them done.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

"a few small sites along the perimeter using current directional drilling technology could tap ANWR with essentially no impact."
That is what you said to start with. It is purely a fabrication from your imagination. Now you are changing what you say, admitting that this statement was false.
But what you are saying *now* is false too.

Nobody in their right mind thinks that is technically feasible. There are *no* wells being drilled those kinds of distances, nor anywhere even close, using *any* kind of technology, much less being drilled horizontally!

If what you say were true... There would currently be oil production from ANWR. The entire eastern edge has been offered for lease, and in fact there are many dry holes within 5 miles of ANWR.
And recently the State of Alaska offered 26 offshore tracts along the northern shore of ANWR for lease. Even though that particular lease sale resulted in the largest sale ever in the Beaufort Sea east of Prudhoe Bay, not one single bid was even placed for any of the tracts on the edge of ANWR.
Please cease posting fabricated facts that you imagine would support your cause. Nobody needs to hear it...
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) snipped-for-privacy@apaflo.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote:

Same basic technology just needs to be scaled / adapted to the task.

They can most certainly manage the ANWR drilling given the goal and the funding. The underlying technology certainly exists. There have already been non oil well scientific drilling projects reaching the depths necessary.

It certainly is true. The investment necessary to to do it just hasn't been made yet.

Everyone is holding off, expecting to either eventually be allowed to drill in ANWR using cheaper conventional methods, or for oil prices to get high enough to justify the investment necessary to drill from the perimeter.

Nothing fabricated about it, it most certainly is possible. No new technology needs to be developed, it's just a matter of the cost to put together the existing technologies necessary for the job. The effort and expense expended to reach the oil is directly tied to the market value of the oil, and that value will only increase.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Saddam Hussein accused Kuwait of horizontal drilling into Iraqi oil deposits before the 1991 Gulf War. That was part of his justification for the invasion of Kuwait.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

But it wasn't anything like the distances which ANWR would require.
The thing with large reservoirs like those in Kuwait/Iraq is that from a location right on the border, a well that angles a mile or so horizontally could then drain an area several square miles in size.
The geology in ANWR is distinctly different, with oil caught in many very small pockets even within a given reservoir. Directional drilling allows a well to break into those pockets and extract oil that would not otherwise drain into any central point being pumped by a vertical well.
Basically Pete hasn't go a clue what the technology does, and is making up a fantasy to suit his needs.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) snipped-for-privacy@apaflo.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote:

No, you have your head stuck on the limits of how the technology is currently used. Take off the blinders and look at how it could be used with a little modification.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Wrong. If that were true, as pointed out they would *currently* be drilling horizontally into ANWR. They aren't. The reason is because what you are suggesting is simply ridiculous blather from your over active imagination.

If that were true, they'd be doing it. Nobody is! Basic fact: it ain't true.
1) The "underlying technology" does not exist.
2) There are hundreds of wells on the North Slope "reaching the depths necessary", which has no significance at all.
3) There are no wells *anywhere* that reach the necessary *length* (7 to 25 miles).

Oh, now you just say all it needs is the money...
Given that some people have been going bonkers about drilling in ANWR for over 25 years, if it was true... why isn't the money available?
There is only one reason: what you say is false.

Ha ha. Now you're getting silly. They were supposedly chomping at the bit to get at it when oil was selling for less that $15 a barrel, and now with peaks hitting 6 times higher, and every oil company has had record profits for months, and you claim somebody is waiting for favorable financial conditions???
You are a joke.

You can't support a word of it with references or cites to credible sources. Logically what you have said is simply silly.

The technology is not there. It isn't even close, and nobody is headed in that direction.

If that were true, those lease sales just offshore of ANWR would have gone for big dollars. Nobody even bid on one of them.
If that were true, the leases on the eastern side of ANWR would be merrily drilling away as we speak. They aren't.

Right now the cost for production of a barrel of oil on the North Slope is less that 20% of the market value for that barrel of oil. If what you are saying were true, every producer on the Slope would be trying to extract oil from ANWR *now*.
In fact, no oil company has shown any interest at all in ANWR for years. Nothing close to ANWR has attracted any attention either. Moreover the State of Alaska is actually taking back some leases close to ANWR because of no activity!
Pete, you just simply need to stop making up what you'd like things to be, do a little research or don't post at all.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) snipped-for-privacy@apaflo.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

When ANWR was big in the news a few years ago, various experts were interviewed for their projections as to what percentage of our oil could be provided by wildly successful drilling in the region. If I recall, even the oil companies were tossing around numbers like 4%. Maybe this is why there's not much interest in the region.
I'm a big proponent of adding together small advantages to get a bigger one, but at some point, one must say "Get serious, or fuhgettaboutit".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote:

BS, pure BS. The cost to drill from the perimeter would be vastly higher and the value of the oil is still too low to profit from it yet.

Absolutely it does, whether your blinder let you see it or not.

I specified non oil well projects, which have been drilling vastly deeper than normal oil wells, depth comparable to the distances that would be needed.

No wells, but there are indeed drilled holes in that depth range.

Simply the price of oil. You go bonkers and try to get approval to drill the cheap way while the value of the oil isn't enough to justify the cost of the unconventional drilling. As the oil prices go up you get closer to the point where the more expensive route can be profitable.

Yep, chomping for what they can get from tried and true conventional drilling. Oil prices need to be higher to generate interest in accessing the oil through more difficult methods.

You are the joke with your tunnel vision.

Nothing at all silly about having the sense to look at what could be done vs. keep the blinders on looking only at what is currently being done.

What mystery technology do you believe would need to exist? Holes of comparable depths have already been drilled for research.

They go for the low hanging fruit first. when that is exhausted they'll look at the harder to reach spots.

That's the most moronic thing you've said so far. Why would they clamor to try something new and untested, when the process could end up costing 120% of the value of what they extract? When prices go up enough it will start to look attractive.

Again, everything you claim is just a matter of the economics, not technological feasibility.

I'm not making up anything.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The price of oil is so high that every oil company is rolling in profits. You are clueless.
There simply is *no* technology that allows it, and nobody is working on developing it either. "Same basic technology" means you haven't got a clue what the technology even is!

So why don't you just provide an example. I've shown you exactly where the current directional drilling technology is in fact used, and the limits of what it can do. Try demonstrating in any way you want that the Alpine Field is not pushing the limits!

Deeper is *not* the problem. The problem is drilling for 7 to 25 *miles* horizontally. Currently nobody even drills that far in a vertical well, never mind horizontally.
(And no you did not specify "non oil well projects", but that would hardly make a bit of difference anyway, as non-oil well drilling is absolutely irrelevant.)

No there aren't. Please, cut the BS.

Giggle snort.

Then why is it you can't cite *anything* that supports your claims. No examples. Nothing at all that references any of the "facts" you claim.

So why don't you just provide some examples of the claimed facts?

Then show something...
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) snipped-for-privacy@apaflo.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
CJT wrote: ...

The first statement is certainly patently false as a blanket generality, others note many that have paid large damages, even to the point of driving them into bankruptcy.
I'll only add that many (and I'd venture "most" but it would take too much time to confirm the statistics) of the Superfund sites are from locations that go back in some cases as much as 100 years earlier to initial site usage for industrial use when both attitudes and knowledge were grossly different than today. At the time, those were standard and common practices and virtually all were within compliance of applicable law and regulations _OF_THE_TIME. That is significant.
That there should be efforts to mitigate former sites is good, but to caste current individuals as scapegoats for stuff done before they were even born is not productive.
That said, yes, there are some who aren't doing all they might, but that too is a fairly widespread trait in human history. Overall, if one compares progress in the US to the developing nations and places such as E Europe or the former Soviet Union, we look pretty darn good.
--


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dpb wrote:

I was once offered an investment opportunity: a sand pit.
Forget about selling the sand, the deal was a tax dodge.
As the sand was removed, you were depleting an asset and got to take a deduction. At some point, the sand pit would be empty. You're left with a honkin' big hole in the ground.
Now you charge people to dump stuff (trees, concrete, etc.). The hole now is your asset, and as it fills, you get another asset-reduction write-off.
When the hole gets full, you cover the mess with topsoil and build low-cost housing.
Anyway, with regard to SuperFund sites, why couldn't they just cover 'em up and build housing for the poor? Lest you think that's weird, Italy covers contaminated sites with rubber sheeting, then soil, and turns the results into parks.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
HeyBub wrote:

Converting superfund sites into low income housing would be discriminatory. You have to convert them into gated golf communities for the rich instead so as not to discriminate...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.