“The climate change debate is here to stay, and as America warms to the idea of environmental conservation on a grander scale, it’s vital that conservatives change the debate before government regulation expands yet again and personal freedom is pushed closer toward extinction,” South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford wrote in the Washington Post. The Republican recommended that conservatives take these three steps:
– Reframe the environmental discussion by replacing the political left’s scare tactics with conservative principles such as responsibility and stewardship.
– Reclaim lost ground from far-left interest groups by showing how environmental conservation is as much about expanding economic opportunity as it is about saving whales or replanting rain forests.
– Respond to climate change with innovation, not regulation.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
71 Comments
Great instead of “we have to work to fix this thing and save the human race!” its “Ok, this is how we can spin this so the left does not come out looking right all along!”. Its save the human race from hell dumb ass!This moron would look at the end of the species this way,” hey but look at the bright side, the liberal are dieing too!”.
[quote]Implications of the Gore Hoax for International Policy……….Leading economist and prominent Democratic Party figure Lyndon LaRouche will address an international webcast on March 7 at 1 PM Eastern Time, on the Implications of the Gore Hoax for International Policy. The webcast will be aired live at http://www.larouchepac.com.
The Gore Hoax itself is the subject of a mass leaflet released February 24 by LPAC, under the title “The Global Warming Hoax: True CO2 Record Buried Under Gore.” The leaflet begins by exposing a shocking fraud:
“The historical record of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, claimed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as the justification for greenhouse gas reduction, is a fraud…..[end quote]
rest here:
http://www.larouchepub.com/pr_lar/2007/lar_pac/070226mar7_wbcst.html
Aaaahhhh! Lyndon LaRouche. Isn’t he the Marxist that believes he was Harold Stassen in a previous life? And the same guy that did six or seven years (of a fifteen year sentence) in the Federal pen for mail and tax fraud? I’ll sure pencil that in for March 7th, GS.
I will admit that it’s an interesting tactic, though. Gore is Don Quixote jousting at windmills, so lets drag out Lyndon LaRouche, who is a complete whack job, and he’ll make Gore look like Einstein.
Here in Kansas, I’m convinced the greatest environmental threat is the draw down of the OGALLALA AQUIFER. This invaluable clean water source lies beneath much of western and central Kansas.
I don’t have time now to get into the story but suffice it say overusage from existing and proposed ethanol plants threatens Wichita’s water supply as well as those west of here.
It’s a tragedy in the making.
rm6046, well, I’ll concede the point that LaRouche is a bit of an extremist – but then, I see MOST Democrats in that light.
However, the substance of the article has not been disproved.
JWink – the draining of aquifers IS a problem, but the Ethanol Plant wont be the major culprit in that respect.
“…it’s vital that conservatives change the debate before government regulation expands yet again and personal freedom is pushed closer toward extinction,” ”
Isn’t this what the anti-capialist Libs wanted in the first place with all the “sky is falling” crap?
Lyndon LaRouche is still around?! And GS seems to believe he tells the truth!
HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
That was exactly my thought, Ben, when I saw GS’ post — JESUS CHRIST, you mean he’s still alive?????????? But, then again, good old Harold Stassen was in his late 90’s, when he finally quit running (pun intended), IIRC. :)
Correction: He was 40 days away from 94, when he croaked in 2001. As my grandfather used to say, “Definitely approaching middle age…”.
LaRouche is 85. Compared to him, McCain is “just a kid”!.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!
GSheridan, you’ve jumped the shark. Best to find yourself a new moniker, lie low for a while, and begin posting again.
All you need to know about subversive wack job LaRouche. And he is about as much a part of the Democratic Party as phred phelps. A hangeroner.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche
The article has never been disproven? heheheheheh
Just by the scientific community. But then, you have to be a fossil fuel shill and a global warming denier to believe what LaRouche says.
Big surprise here who supports LaRouche. heheheheheheheheheheheheh
The global warming deniers and fossil fuels shills.
LaRouche, like Fred Phelps, is a democrat.
If you guys don’t like that -perhaps you should either change parties – or clean out your ranks.
GSher: You say “The Ethanol Plant won’t be the culprit.” Sorry GS. According to my notes, there soon could be 24 ethanol and bio-diesel manufacturing plants operating in Kansas.
I am searching for more accurate figures on water usage for ethanol manufacturing tied to gallons of ethanol produced. But suffice it to say an ethanol plant, even a small one, uses the equivalency of water used by a town the size of Pratt.
I say taking that much additional “pure” water out of our valuable underground Kansas aquifers is a giant threat to the future viability of Kansas.
It seems strange to me that manufacturing of ethanol gets priority for using our grade A, relatively pure ancient underground water … but Kansas citizens get second choice. Kansas citizens might soon be relegated to drinking disgorged, recirculated (but treated) sewage effluent out of our rivers, not very appealing.
Reminds me of the movie, JAWS. “Please don’t mention the presence of sharks … it might scare off the tourists.”
Frmgrl: Give GS a break here. Even I am, on this one. She just left two words out of her final sentence, to wit:
“However, the [COMPLETE] substance of his theory has not be disproved [YET].”
In those immortal words of Rodney King, “Why can’t we all just get along?” (Psst, Rodney, my man, don’t bogart that joint).
JWink: About 10 or 15 years ago, at a convention of hydrologists, the keynote speaker, (couldn’t remember his name with a gun to my head) closed his speech with a quote similar to this:
“So in closing, there is good news and bad news. The good news is that in 20 years, all of the water we drink will be recycled sewage. The bad news is, there won’t be enough of it to go around.”
It seems his prognostication is coming true right before our eyes.
Here ya go JWINK, some figures on ethanol plant water usage. Note that most supporters of such plants only use the “four gallons of water for every gallon of ethanol produced” but they fail to take into account the water used to supply the irrigated grains, mostly corn, that are used by ethanol plants.
And this from GRAIN NET!!!http://www.grainnet.com/articles/BFJ_com_EXCLUSIVE__New_Research_Paper_Finds_Water_Availability_Critical_to_Growth_of_Ethanol_Industry-38850.html
BFJ.com EXCLUSIVE: New Research Paper Finds Water Availability Critical to Growth of Ethanol Industry
Ethanol Plant Water UsageConsumptive water use by ethanol plants largely comes from evaporation during cooling and wastewater discharge, the paper said. Consumptive water use is defined as any use of water that reduces the supply from which it is withdrawn or diverted.Generally, an ethanol plant will use 10 gallons of water per minute for each 1 million gallons of ethanol produced. A typical 50 million gallon plant, would need 500 gallons per minute of water.There are no publicly available records on water use by ethanol plants in the United States, the authors found, with the exception of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.Minnesota plants use a range of 3.5 to 6 gallons of water per gallon of ethanol. Average water use has declined from 5.8:1 in 1998 to 4.2:1 in 2005.Authors of the paper said 4 gallons of water per gallon of ethanol is a good estimate with the current technology.Applying that number to the amount of ethanol production expected to come online in 2008 would result in a 254% increase in the volume of water used in ethanol production from 1998 to 2008.Water availability will challenge the ethanol industry in many regions, the paper said, particularly west of the Missouri River.
This is a good article on how much grain is needed for the ethanol plants, how much water is used to grow that grain, and what the outlook is for water usage by ethanol plants.
Water usage to grow grains used in ethanol plants
http://www.contractormag.com/articles/newsarticle.cfm?newsid=715
Lester Brown discussed how water, energy and food are inexorably intertwined.
Humans need 4 liters of water per day, and it takes 2,000 liters of water to produce the food each of us consumes every day!
It takes 1,000 tons of water to produce 1 ton of grain, he said.”Connect the dots,” Brown said. “A future of water shortages will equal a future of food shortages. The world’s population doubled but the demand for water tripled. Demand is outpacing supply and there will be 3 billion more people by 2050 — many in countries already going dry.”He cited our own U.S.-based over-pumping of the Ogallala Aquifer as an example of one area in our own backyard where we’re in danger.
As the value of water rises to previously unheard of heights, some farmers have found it lucrative to abandon farming and sell their water rights to cities or water brokers!”It’s becoming a battle over water that pits cities against farmers,” Brown said. “Neither can win and neither can afford to lose.”Not one single country has addressed the stabilization of falling water tables.”
GS – we cannot prevent someone like LaRouche from calling himself a Democrat. How do you like having David Duke in YOUR ranks.
rm – the claims LaRouche has on that site HAVE been debunked. I went through a lot of that on this blog some time ago. Has to do with measured CO2 levels in locations downwind of power plant/factory stacks. That is why we prefer isolated locations to get ‘global’ samples.
…and a few facts about corn, ethanol, and water usage.
Corn ethanol http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002722.html
As you know, Ben, I’m not scientist. I was trying to be kind.
…and if you dont think water and ethanol are related…
…remember that JOE HARKINS, governor leadership’s go to boy, the darth cheney of politics, has moved from his “special assignment” by the governor at the Kansas Water Office where he personally presided over the rape of the Smoky Basin.
Where did he move to?
The newly developed KANSAS ENERGY OFFICE headed by the lite gov.
Check out Peg’s blog for news of the arm twisting going on in governor leadership’s office.
You dont think SHE believes water and energy are related?
http://www.kansasprairie.net/blog1/blogindex.htm
I think governor leadership is compiling herself a real red state record on the environment. No wonder the repukes love her so much. She’s right in there on the “rape the resources” approach to water.
Gee. Wonder if her less than stellar record on the environment will curtail her national ambitions, given that the democrats are going green?
I’m quite sure the national republicans are taking note…
rm … a lawyer … KIND?
Isn’t that like “legal brief”? An oxy-moron?
JWink -I said the ‘major culprit.’ All water usage is a culprit of one sort or another.
Ethanol can be produced not only from irrigated corn, but from non-irrigated grass varieties. There are better options.
My point is that there are MUCH bigger wastes of water – where we get NO return at all.
Your point about David duke is well taken. We could include Gary Bauer, Jerry Falwell, Pat & Bay Buchcanan, Newt Gingrich, that Coulter bitch, etc. to the list of “culls”. But, unfortunately, if people deign to call themselves Republicans, or Ethiopian Episcopalians, for that matter, with no intent to defraud, there’s not a dmaned thing we can or should do about it. It’s one of the freedoms Americans have fought and died for for well over 200 years. Both sides have old drunk Uncle Frank at the reunions that everybody tries to ignore and pretend he’s really not there.
GS – on this we are in agreement. One big water waster (in my professional opinion) is the way we approach flood control. Channelize everything; get rid of it; accellerate its flow to the Gulf of Mexico. Then complain when it is gone …
Ben: We all have our rare “weaker moments”. :)
“My point is that there are MUCH bigger wastes of water – where we get NO return at all.”
Oh, so TWO wasters, no make it THREE wasters with the coal fired plants, make it ok? Shouldnt we stop ALL waste?
Jesus wept.
Oh, and BTW, please list all the opertating and proposed ethanol plants in Kansas that DONT rely on corn.
Switch grass and biomass are bush’s wet dream before the SOTU.
I’m wondering if the climate change deniers think that when the permafrost in Alaska melts and causes billions of dollars in damage and disrupts the flow of oil raising gas prices will they think the results of their non-action will be cost effective? Even the notorious anti-environment Senator Ted Stevens recognizes the problem. Even though towns are currently being relocated because of rising ocean levels the deniers will continue to deny, just because they don’t want to be inconvenienced with more fuel efficient vehicles and energy efficient light bulbs.
farmie – what does Jesus have to do with anything?
I’m just saying that there are bigger wastes that we don’t get a return for. We do get a return on energy sources.
I’m going to repost a post here that you likely wont care about since it doesn’t fit your current agenda, but it’s still valid.
[repost from SJ boards]…When you drill a water well, you drill to the depth you can reach potable water. Around most of KS, that’s between 100 and 300 feet, most of the time on the shallow side. Our aquifers are pure water that has been there for millions of years. Run off will replenish some of it – but not the quality.
And oil well is much deeper – more than 500 feet most of the time.
In Nebraska, drillers have to case the wells all the way down. A rotary rig will make about a seven inch hole, but a cable tool rig hole can be double that in diameter.
In KS there is not a law saying the holes need to be cased to seal all the way to the oil level.
Below the aquifers is a salt water level. That water is not potable. An uncased oil well is a constant source of aquifer drain since the higher potable water level runs non stop down to mix with the salt water.
Most water wells are cased above the potable level to keep shallow water, which is usually not drinkable, from mixing with the good stuff, but the aquifer-level pure water is not cased at that depth to keep from mixing with the lower levels so it runs – like a fire hydrant – 24 hours a day – 365 days a year.
Multiply that by the tens of thousands of uncased wells that drill through the aquifer and the amount of water loss is beyond words.
As a kid, I sometimes went with my dad to visit wells and he let me hear the rushing sound. Water.
Colorado and Wyoming are just as bad, but they aren’t hurting for water.
Everyone would be pissing mad if they had to case their oil wells – but the savings in pure water would turn Ks shortage around.[end repost]
GS, I agree with this; I don’t know whether the savings would turn the Kansas shortage around, but it will definitely help.
Why would casing old wells not fit my agenda of wise water use? WTF?
Good. Let’s case the wells. It still has nothing to do with the water problem as it relates to ethanol.
And, btw, I saw that post on the SJ by YOU, TIPPY!!!
Isnt that the original definition of meme? hehehehehehe. I said it, I cite myself, therefore, I cited a source and it must be true!!!
heheheheheh
See the definition of troll….
farmie – I stated that it was a REPOST. Obviously you have an agenda – as I said.
Vaughn, here’s a response on that site from an engineer who did some research into the subject:
[quote]The web says in 2005 Kansas had 41,713 oil wells and 17,647 gas wells OPERATING. That totals 59,360 OPERATING wells.
Calculating water loss per well:Assume 3 gallons lost per well per minute= 180 gallons lost per well per hour= 4,320 gllons lost per well per day= 1,576,800 gallons lost per well per year= 93,598,848,000 gallons lost per year by the 59,360 wells!!!!If Salina uses 12,500,000 gallons per day (I recall Tom’s editorial figure, possibly I’m wrong here)Then: the Kansas OPERATING wells loose 20X the water used by Salina each year.
How many abandoned oil and gas wells does Kansas have to add to this?[end quote]
I think his estimates were okay in some areas -but conservative in others. This has been going on for as long as oil wells have been putting down holes.
But, some holes are actually plugged when they are through. Some are just capped, which, of course, is not a help.
Wow, I agree with something Ben said regarding flood control. I’ve always wondered about that as well.
Wait, there’s another thing I agree with too! More nuclear power!
You said it was a repost from the SJ. Not that it was a repost from YOU under a different name.
Misleading? Dishonest? Self aggrandizing? Check on all three.
Yep. Meme.
farmie – if you cared as much about the water – as you do about stirring the pot – I might believe you actually cared.
But you don’t.
Instead of listening and learning – you just keep blindly going down the same old path.
It’s getting to be tiresome.
If you can dispute what I, or the engineer said, do so. Otherwise, STFU.
From an economic point of view, casing all these old wells would be a disaster. Many of these fields are 25 to 40 years old. They’re literally dying. The expense of your proposal would result in simply plugging them, thereby adding to the shortage of domestic production. I was in a discussion, as recently as last night, regarding a gas field we have that is 38 years old. The optimists believe there is a transmission line leak, so there’s a backhoe out there right now exposing about 750 yards of line…for nothing. There’s no leak. The field is dying. In a few months, the only choices will be to put everything on electricity or give up on it. To put it on electricity would make Al Gore’s electric bill look like pocket change. I argued, unsuccessfully, that it’s a waste of money to expose that line and that, it’s been a good 38 years and let it die peacefully. I guess we’ll know by this evening whether I was right or not.
But, I’m getting off the subject. You can’t economically go back in and case all of these wells to the bottom. And, for any of you who think GS is involved in the oil and gas business, she’s not. If she was, she would know a hell of a lot more about it than she does. As the late Howard Hunt said, “The only sure way to make a million dollars in the oil business is start with two million and quit when you’ve lost 1/2 of it.”
Jane you ignorant slut!
“If you can dispute what I, or the engineer said, do so.”
I already agreed that well casing is a good thing to do.
What is it I need to be educated on? The world according to little miss fossil fuels?
I’m pointing out that you are a classic example of the reich wingnut meme tactic.
You dumb biotch. You dont even know when someone agrees with what you said. You didnt have to use the meme to give yourself credibility.
Just another example of your lying ways…..
rm, obviously casing old wells isn’t going to happen; my thoughts on the subject were prospective, for new wells; that will help, not to mention overcoming some legal impediments to requiring old wells be cased.
rm6046,
You’re showing a lot of ignorance here.
If you cared to check, you would find that the engineer already backed up what was said – AND presented numbers.
For some reason it bothers you to be jolted from your blinders-on agenda.
The cost of casing the wells is relative to the cost of the product, which is pretty good right now.
While you keep saying that it isn’t feasible, millions of gallons are being lost every year.
Too expensive?
The waste will NOT stop. It will go on and on and on. Until your grandchildren pass legislation to stop it.
If it was so horrible – why has Nebraska passed laws to prevent it?
Got an answer for that, smarty pants?
Oh, but rm, tippy’s post in the SJ was followed by a heartwarming story about how she used to tag along with her daddy in the oil fields.
It must be true!!!!!
farmie – ‘biotch,’ ’slut’?
What’s with the trash talk?
If you could EVER stay on topic and keep from trying to denigrate anyone you don’t like – I’d be amazed.
Yes, the wells should be cased. That may be the only thing you and I EVER agree upon. I just wish you could write that and leave the expletives behind someday.
Vaughn: I really have no problem with requiring casing to the bottom of the hole in new wells. In the overall scheme of things, the additional cost is marginal. But that isn’t what was being proposed. Obviously, any such requirement would have to include “grandfathering” in any existing production. But that’s not what they were arguing. Also, what about work over wells? You don’t work over a good well…you work over a marginal or dormant well. Would they be “grandfathered” or would one be required to spec it as a new one. That would add a real factor to the feasibility of working over an old well? Rhetorical questions, all, I admit. But remember, we’re still digging out of the hole from $11/bbl oil for umpteen years.
For Christ’s sake, GSher, is it your objective to royally piss off EVERYONE on the blog?
What a hateful loser you are.
So far, your fan club is down to Fleet and Nut.
You will be known by the company you keep.
…and NONE of this talk of casing oil wells has ANYTHING to do with the rape of our water resources by coal plants and ethanol plants.
Nice try on diverting the subject.
We are amused, and we do encourage you to play again.
Yes, GS, times are pretty good right now, as far as the price of a barrel of oil. But when you are over $1 million in debt from providing oil when it cost more to get it out of ground than you could sell it for, it’s hard to tell a hell of a lot of difference.
“What a hateful loser you are.”
Pot, paging kettle.
WSClark – what’s your problem? Do you EVER address a topic? Or do you just troll folks you don’t like? You’ve already issued a challenge to some of us for a physical confrontation – so you aren’t clean by any means.
I’m starting to wonder just how many usernames some folks on this board post under…..
Farmie – obviously you don’t care about the water issue, as much as you do your pet peeves.
I’m just throwing the information out there – if you want to ignore it – knock yourself out. Others are interested. Does it bother you if we discuss it? You don’t have to join in, you know.
RM – I don’t think ANY wells need to be ‘grandfathered.’ The cost is approx 500, or so, (depending upon the depth) ft of piping, and the labor to drop it. Sure, the pumping will stop while it is beign done – but water wells are cased on a regular basis. Why not oil?
Nebraska has controlled it. Why not Kansas?
A lot of ‘dry’ wells were abandoned and those could be plugged to stop the drain.
This isn’t like Power Plant water. This isn’t like irrigation water. This is water that is being wasted for no earthly use.
…and it does NOT absolve the coal fired electricty and ethanol plants of THEIR squandering of our resources.
“Or do you just troll folks you don’t like? You’ve already issued a challenge to some of us for a physical confrontation – so you aren’t clean by any means.”
I have never trolled anyone, GSher. You have absolutely zero proof of that, so we can chalk that up to another one of your unsubstantiated lies.
As for never adding anything to the blog? I am fairly well known for my views on the war, race relations, etc. Additionally, I do add my two cents worth when someone like you is needlessly attacking one of my friends – although Capn’, P Mom, Farm Grrl and Tracy hardly need my help.
As for my “physical challenge?” The statement was rhetorical, as in, if someone were to attack myself or a member of my family, I do have the capability of making a defense without using a gun.
The point I was making on the thread was your best weapon in protecting yourself is your BRAIN.
Of course, in your case, YOUR brain would hardly be an asset.
I would respectfully point out that these “shallow’ stripper wells (500 ft (=/-) are almost exclusively limited to far southeastern Kansas.
While I no longer do any oil & gas work, I have done some in the past. Some time ago, about 10 to 15 years, as I recall, the KCC instituted a policy that when a well was abandoned, for whatever reason, it had to be plugged within a year. IIRC, the required Notice of Abandonment was to be accompanied by a plugging report. If it wasn’t, the KCC would inquire as to what was going on, and would suggest it happen post haste or the operator stood to be penalized, including losing his/her/its operator’s license.
This is how it used to be; I’ve not updated myself, but I cannot imagine this has changed over the time. Plugging wells will take care of the water wasting issue as to these holes.
Ksfg, you are correct; there are still those issues out there.
Yeah rm, and it is WESTERN kansas that is running out of water. You know, the place where they are putting the coal fired plant and most of the new ethanol plants?
And where is little miss fossil fuels shero, governor leadership, on ANY of these issues?
Oh yeah, bunkered in a Cedar Crest. She just send joe harkins out to do her dirty work.
Nice record on the environment there for governor leadership.
WSClark – So far – on this thread you haven’t addressed the water issue at all – just trolled my posts. If you have something to add to the topic – by all means…do. If you just want to keep slinging mud, do it somewhere else. Nice to know Pmom is your friend – she’s my friend, too. And my neighbor.
FArmie – I’m not trying to change any subject, just trying to let you know that there are bigger dogs in this fight than what you keep betting on.
If you don’t want to discuss it – fine. Don’t. It wont go away while you’re ignoring it, however.
“WSClark – So far – on this thread you haven’t addressed the water issue at all – just trolled my posts.”
So me a post where I trolled you, GSher. Back up your lie. I have never trolled you or anyone else.
As for the water issue? It is not my area of expertise, however, you have hardly earned the right to tell ANYONE to leave a thread.
But I will be waiting for you to come up with the post where I have trolled you.
Perhaps you can come up with that at the same time that you post your information about Tracy?
Or are you just a serial liar?
What is it I dont want to discuss?
I think it is YOU who doesnt want to discuss how much water the coal fired plant will squander, not to mention the ethanol plants.
I said to go ahead and case the wells. IT STILL DOESNT CHANGE THE AMOUNT OF WATER THE HOLCOMB OR ETHANOL PLANTS USE!!!
What part of that is so hard for you to understand? You must have gotten YOUR education from the “two wrongs make a right” school.
And while we are on the subject of not discussing, I see you still havent backed up your assertion that Molly was dropped by papers for plagiarism.
YOU are the one dodging discussions little girl.
heheeh clark, how about “compulsive liar”? Compulsive serial liar?
Just plain liar I guess.
Vaughn – I believe you are correct in that the abandoned wells need to be plugged. And quite a few were plugged – to my limited knowledge, but there are a number of ‘dry’ wells that were not documented on the maps that continue to drain, as far as I know.
I’m not an expert on the recent legislation to plug all of the abandoned ones however.
Frmgl: Your point is well taken. But GS is spouting that the cost of casing a 500′ well all the way to the bottom of the hole isn’t that expensive, and it’s not. But casing a 500′ well in, say, Labette County, ain’t going to do shit for western Kansas. And the wells in western Kansas aren’t 500′, they’re 3000′ or more.
As I said earlier, GS is clueless when it comes to the oil patch in more ways than one. And Vaughn is absolutely correct regarding the KCC. For the most part, they’re nice guys and they’ll work with you on availability of service providers, etc., but they do have the hammer, and you will plug the abandoned hole…if you plan to keep your operator’s license and/or pay fines.
*and/or NOT pay fines, etc.
Limited knowledge, GS? That’s an overstatement – no knowledge at all. But thanks for admitting it. And none of the legislation/regulations is recent.
Oh yeah, I was right about that bastard Kerr. He is an ethanol pig:
http://www.bizjournals.com/wichita/stories/2006/07/31/daily5.html
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4179/is_20060831/ai_n16712419
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_km4479/is_200612/ai_n17070521
I guess we all see where governor leadership is taking this state and its water supply.With mark parkinson (former repuke) and Joe Harkins heading up the energy office, mike hayden (current repuke) crying to purchase the circle k ranch, and kerr (current repuke) heading up the dept of commerce…
…y’all better fill up yer canteens NOW before governor leadership and her merry band of repukes drain the state!
google dave kerr + ethanol and see what you get….
I just installed some old high-flow toilets that actually work and don’t require multiple flushes. Nice.
rm – even when not cased isn’t the oil pumped up some sort of pipe? If for no other reason than to not lose it?
Ben: Pressure tested tubing, inside the casing, which is perforated at the producing zone.
GSheridan,
“However, the substance of the article has not been disproved.”
It’s BRAIN-DEAD BS, disproven by anyone with a tiny bit of common sense.
See the graph at this OLD, Jan 2005 page,http://timlambert.org/2005/01/hissink3“The measurements for 1865, for example, vary from 290 to 550 parts per million. It just isn’t possible for the CO2 concentration to change by that much in one year – the difference corresponds to about 500 billion tons of carbon which is about the same amount of carbon in all plants in the entire world….So given that many of the measurements are wrong, it makes no sense to average them as Jaworowski suggests should be done. The correct procedure is discard the inaccurate measurements. Callendar discarded (Tellus X (1958 p 244):
(a) Period mean values 10% or more different from the general average of the time and region.
(b) Air samples taken in towns, because these often give 5 to 20% more CO2 than uncontaminated air.
(c) Averages depending on only a few samples, or made within a short period, because real fluctuations may exceed 10% in such cases.
(d) Measurements intended for special purposes such as biological, soil air, atmospheric pollution, etc”
More at, ‘More Nonsense about CO2′http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/10/more_nonsense_about_co2.php
GSheridan seems so desperate to prove climate scientists and Al Gore wrong, she prefers to believe BS from Lyndon LaRouche, and ignore common sense.
rm – thanks. That’s what I thought but wasn’t sure.
Actually, my biggest concern with these wells is brine disposal – the possibility of leaks in the injection wells.
“Reframe the environmental discussion by replacing the political left’s scare tactics with conservative principles such as responsibility and stewardship”
Political left’s scare tactics? This from a politician in the party that RUNS ON FEAR EVERY FCUKING ELECTION? “If the Dems win, the terrorists will eat your babies in mandatory abortion clinics.” “If the Dems win, you will be FORCED to have anal sex…WITH A MAN!”
And conservative principles such as conservation and stewardship? Gee, Mr. Sanford must have forgotten that it is HIS PARTY that tries to gut the EPA at every turn. It is HIS PARTY that sides with big business and rich developers AT ALL TIMES over the concerns of concerned citizens, liberal and conservative, who want to preserve natural spaces for our children. What a fcuking joke. It is because of people like Sanford and the frothing-at-the-mouth right-wing nutcake base that the fasc…err, Republican Party will continue to lose elections.
‘Don’t discuss polar bears”: memo to scientists By Deborah Zabarenko, Environment Correspondent35 minutes ago
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Polar bears, sea ice and global warming are taboo subjects, at least in public, for some U.S. scientists attending meetings abroad, environmental groups and a top federal wildlife official said on Thursday.
ADVERTISEMENTEnvironmental activists called this scientific censorship, which they said was in line with the Bush administration’s history of muzzling dissent over global climate change.
But H. Dale Hall, director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said this policy was a long-standing one, meant to honor international protocols for meetings where the topics of discussion are negotiated in advance.
The matter came to light in e-mails from the Fish and Wildlife Service that were distributed by the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Center for Biological Diversity, both environmental groups.
Listed as a “new requirement” for foreign travelers on U.S. government business, the memo says that requests for foreign travel “involving or potentially involving climate change, sea ice, and/or polar bears” require special handling, including notice of who will be the official spokesman for the trip.
The Fish and Wildlife Service top officials need assurance that the spokesman, “the one responding to questions on these issues, particularly polar bears” understands the administration’s position on these topics.
Two accompanying memos were offered as examples of these kinds of assurance. Both included the line that the traveler “understands the administration’s position on climate change, polar bears, and sea ice and will not be speaking on or responding to these issues.”
ARE POLAR BEARS ‘THREATENED’?
Polar bears are a hot topic for the Bush administration, which decided in December to consider whether to list the white-furred behemoths as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act, because of scientific reports that the bears’ icy habitat is melting due to global warming.
Hall said a decision is expected in January 2008. A “threatened” listing would bar the government from taking any action that jeopardizes the animal’s existence, and might spur debate about tougher measures to cut the greenhouse gas emissions that spur global warming.
Hall defended the policy laid out in the memos, saying it was meant to keep scientists from straying from a set agenda at meetings in countries like Russia, Norway and Canada.
For example, he said, one meeting was about “human and polar bear interface.” Receding Arctic sea ice where polar bears live and the global climate change that likely played a role in the melting were not proper discussion topics, he said.
“That’s not a climate change discussion,” Hall said at a telephone briefing. “That’s a management, on-the-ground type discussion.”
The prohibition on talking about these subjects only applies to public, formal situations, Hall said. Private scientific discussions outside the meeting and away from media are permitted and encouraged, he said.
“This administration has a long history of censoring speech and science on global warming,” Eben Burnham-Snyder of the Natural Resources Defense Council said by telephone.
“Whenever we see an instance of the Bush administration restricting speech on global warming, it sends up a huge red flag that their commitment to the issue does not reflect their rhetoric,” Burnham-Snyder said.